[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 08:49:52 -0500
From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.de>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, fdmanana@...il.com, dsterba@...e.cz,
david@...morbit.com, darrick.wong@...cle.com,
cluster-devel@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: always fall back to buffered I/O after invalidation failures,
was: Re: [PATCH 2/6] iomap: IOMAP_DIO_RWF_NO_STALE_PAGECACHE return if page
invalidation fails
On 13:57 07/07, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 07:43:46AM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > On 9:53 01/07, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 29, 2020 at 02:23:49PM -0500, Goldwyn Rodrigues wrote:
> > > > From: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>
> > > >
> > > > For direct I/O, add the flag IOMAP_DIO_RWF_NO_STALE_PAGECACHE to indicate
> > > > that if the page invalidation fails, return back control to the
> > > > filesystem so it may fallback to buffered mode.
> > > >
> > > > Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@...cle.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@...e.com>
> > >
> > > I'd like to start a discussion of this shouldn't really be the
> > > default behavior. If we have page cache that can't be invalidated it
> > > actually makes a whole lot of sense to not do direct I/O, avoid the
> > > warnings, etc.
> > >
> > > Adding all the relevant lists.
> >
> > Since no one responded so far, let me see if I can stir the cauldron :)
> >
> > What error should be returned in case of such an error? I think the
>
> Christoph's message is ambiguous. I don't know if he means "fail the
> I/O with an error" or "satisfy the I/O through the page cache". I'm
> strongly in favour of the latter. Indeed, I'm in favour of not invalidating
> the page cache at all for direct I/O. For reads, I think the page cache
> should be used to satisfy any portion of the read which is currently
That indeed would make reads faster. How about if the pages are dirty
during DIO reads?
Should a direct I/O read be responsible for making sure that the dirty
pages are written back. Technically direct I/O reads is that we are
reading from the device.
> cached. For writes, I think we should write into the page cache pages
> which currently exist, and then force those pages to be written back,
> but left in cache.
Yes, that makes sense.
If this is implemented, what would be the difference between O_DIRECT
and O_DSYNC, if any?
--
Goldwyn
Powered by blists - more mailing lists