linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't use ioends for direct write completions

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160208010026.GL31407@dastard>
Date:	Mon, 8 Feb 2016 12:00:26 +1100
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't use ioends for direct write completions

On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We only need to communicate two bits of information to the direct I/O
> completion handler:
> 
>  (1) do we need to convert any unwritten extents in the range
>  (2) do we need to check if we need to update the inode size based
>      on the range passed to the completion handler
> 
> We can use the private data passed to the get_block handler and the
> completion handler as a simple bitmask to communicate this information
> instead of the current complicated infrastructure reusing the ioends
> from the buffer I/O path, and thus avoiding a memory allocation and
> a context switch for any non-trivial direct write.  As a nice side
> effect we also decouple the direct I/O path implementation from that
> of the buffered I/O path.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@...hat.com>

This change is now dependent on the preceeding direct IO API
changes. Do I a) take the DIO API change through the XFS tree, or
b) use the older version of the patch that didn't have this
dependency and let somebody else deal with the API change and merge
issues?

I'm happy to take the DIO API change through the XFS tree, if that's
the fastest/easiest way to get the necessary DIO subsystem fixes
into the mainline tree for XFS. As such, the for-next tree that I'm
building right now will include the DIO API change patch....

-Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html