[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 3 Apr 2017 23:52:11 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.de>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.com, hch@...radead.org,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
sagi@...mberg.me, avi@...lladb.com, axboe@...nel.dk,
linux-api@...r.kernel.org, willy@...radead.org,
tom.leiming@...il.com, Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] nowait aio: xfs
> + if (unaligned_io) {
> + /* If we are going to wait for other DIO to finish, bail */
> + if ((iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) &&
> + atomic_read(&inode->i_dio_count))
> + return -EAGAIN;
> inode_dio_wait(inode);
This checks i_dio_count twice in the nowait case, I think it should be:
if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_NOWAIT) {
if (atomic_read(&inode->i_dio_count))
return -EAGAIN;
} else {
inode_dio_wait(inode);
}
> if ((flags & (IOMAP_WRITE | IOMAP_ZERO)) && xfs_is_reflink_inode(ip)) {
> if (flags & IOMAP_DIRECT) {
> + /* A reflinked inode will result in CoW alloc */
> + if (flags & IOMAP_NOWAIT) {
> + error = -EAGAIN;
> + goto out_unlock;
> + }
This is a bit pessimistic - just because the inode has any shared
extents we could still write into unshared ones. For now I think this
pessimistic check is fine, but the comment should be corrected.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists