[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZDjggMCGautPUDpW@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:11:28 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
Cc: Bernd Schubert <bschubert@....com>, axboe@...nel.dk,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
dsingh@....com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: add FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE flag
On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 09:40:29AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> fuse_direct_write_iter():
>
> bool exclusive_lock =
> !(ff->open_flags & FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES) ||
> iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_APPEND ||
> fuse_direct_write_extending_i_size(iocb, from);
>
> If the write is size extending, then it will take the lock exclusive.
> OTOH, I guess that it would be unusual for lots of size extending
> writes to be done in parallel.
>
> What would be the effect of giving the FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE hint
> and then still serializing the writes?
I have no idea how this flags work, but XFS also takes i_rwsem
exclusively for appends, when the positions and size aren't aligned to
the block size, and a few other cases.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists