[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <CE218419-352C-4D22-BACF-12D389EA9B19@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 10:34:28 -0800
From: Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>
To: suparna@...ibm.com
Cc: linux-aio@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Leonid Ananiev <leonid.i.ananiev@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] aio: propogate post-EIOCBQUEUED errors to completion event
> This is an interesting trick, but I'd like to consider hard whether
> the added
> complexity is worth it. Could you list the various other cases you
> have in mind
> which would want to use it ?
I'm happy to report that the sync case and the
invalidate_inode_pages2_range() case are the only two which try to
rewrite 'ret'. I audited all the call paths between aio_{read,write}
and -EIOCBQUUEUED.
So, sure, maybe we can shuffle the house of cards a little in the
direction away from having a fs/aio.c helper for the situation by
simply removing the few current instances of the problem. It won't
scale as people add problems without knowing about the rule to not
overwrite -EIOCBQUEUED, but hopefully that won't be a rule for much
longer :) :).
For the O_SYNC case we could add another magical test to the is_async
assignment which won't perform AIO on O_SYNC descriptors.
> For the invalidate_inode_pages2_range() case, I wonder if the right
> place to issue this is after the direct IO write has completed and
> before
> aio_complete() is issued (somewhat like the way we do
> bio_check_pages_dirty
> for DIO reads), rather than after submission when the IO may still
> not have
> hit the disk. This would also make the behaviour uniform for
> synchronous and
> async cases.
Hmm, I think I like that. It solves the problem for the current sole
user of -EIOCBQUEUED without too much disruption.
> BTW, am I right in interpreting that with your change aio_complete
> () may
> trigger an io_getevents() wakeup, before the corresponding event is
> placed
> on the ring buffer ?
Hmm, yeah, it looks like I goofed that.
I'll roll a patch which does the invalidation down in fs/direct-io.c.
- z
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists