[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160427033746.GL18496@dastard>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 13:37:46 +1000
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
Dmitry Monakhov <dmonlist@...il.com>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-api@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: O_DIRECT as a hint, was: Re: [PATCH] ext4: refuse O_DIRECT opens
for mode where DIO doesn't work
On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 11:25:26PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 12:27:46PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > At this point I wonder if we should simply treat O_DIRECT as a hint
> > > and always allow it, and just let the file system optimize for it
> > > (skip buffering, require alignment, relaxed Posix atomicy requirements)
> > > if it is set.
> >
> > I thought that's how most filesystems treated it, anyway. i.e.
> > anything they can't do via direct IO, they fell back to buffered IO
> > to complete (e.g. for allocation or append writes, etc). Hence why I
> > suggested the fallback rather than erroring out....
>
> No, some file systems return EINVAL on the open. In fact that's what
> the _require_odirect test in xfstests relies upon....
Sure, but that doesn't change the fact that many of the filesystems
that "support O_DIRECT" don't always do O_DIRECT - they
transparently do buffered IO instead and hence are treating O_DIRECT
as a hint once the file has been opened.
Cheers,
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists