[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <85d1b27c-f4ef-43dd-8eed-f497817ab86d@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Dec 2023 10:42:57 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>, Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
dchinner@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/7] iomap: Don't fall back to buffered write if the write
is atomic
On 30/11/2023 21:10, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 30, 2023 at 07:23:09PM +0530, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
>> Currently, iomap only supports atomic writes for direct IOs and there is
>> no guarantees that a buffered IO will be atomic. Hence, if the user has
>> explicitly requested the direct write to be atomic and there's a
>> failure, return -EIO instead of falling back to buffered IO.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo<ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> fs/iomap/direct-io.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
>> index 6ef25e26f1a1..3e7cd9bc8f4d 100644
>> --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
>> +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
>> @@ -662,7 +662,13 @@ __iomap_dio_rw(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
>> if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
>> trace_iomap_dio_invalidate_fail(inode, iomi.pos,
>> iomi.len);
>> - ret = -ENOTBLK;
>> + /*
>> + * if this write was supposed to be atomic,
>> + * return the err rather than trying to fall
>> + * back to buffered IO.
>> + */
>> + if (!atomic_write)
>> + ret = -ENOTBLK;
> This belongs in the caller when it receives an -ENOTBLK from
> iomap_dio_rw(). The iomap code is saying "this IO cannot be done
> with direct IO" by returning this value, and then the caller can
> make the determination of whether to run a buffered IO or not.
>
> For example, a filesystem might still be able to perform an atomic
> IO via a COW-based buffered IO slow path. Sure, ext4 can't do this,
> but the above patch would prevent filesystems that could from being
> able to implement such a fallback....
Sure, and I think that we need a better story for supporting buffered IO
for atomic writes.
Currently we have:
- man pages tell us RWF_ATOMIC is only supported for direct IO
- statx gives atomic write unit min/max, not explicitly telling us it's
for direct IO
- RWF_ATOMIC is ignored for !O_DIRECT
So I am thinking of expanding statx support to enable querying of atomic
write capabilities for buffered IO and direct IO separately.
Thanks,
John
Powered by blists - more mailing lists