[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20191227053231.A103111C058@d06av25.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 11:02:30 +0530
From: Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
"Berrocal, Eduardo" <eduardo.berrocal@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Optimize ext4 DIO overwrites
On 12/26/19 10:47 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 08:28:23PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> However depending on which patch lands first one may need a
>>> re-basing. Will conflict with this-
>>> https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=157613016931238&w=2
>>
>> Yes, but the conflict is minor and trivial to resolve.
>>
>
> Is this the correct resolution?
>
> --- a/fs/ext4/file.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/file.c
> @@ -447,6 +447,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> struct inode *inode = file_inode(iocb->ki_filp);
> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
> size_t count = iov_iter_count(from);
> + const struct iomap_ops *iomap_ops = &ext4_iomap_ops;
> bool extend = false, unaligned_io = false;
> bool ilock_shared = true;
>
> @@ -526,7 +527,9 @@ static ssize_t ext4_dio_write_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *from)
> ext4_journal_stop(handle);
> }
>
> - ret = iomap_dio_rw(iocb, from, &ext4_iomap_ops, &ext4_dio_write_ops,
> + if (ilock_shared)
> + iomap_ops = &ext4_iomap_overwrite_ops;
> + ret = iomap_dio_rw(iocb, from, iomap_ops, &ext4_dio_write_ops,
> is_sync_kiocb(iocb) || unaligned_io || extend);
>
> if (extend)
>
>
Yes, this looks correct to me.
Thanks
-ritesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists