[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150125133433.GB19445@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 05:34:33 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Benjamin LaHaise <bcrl@...ck.org>,
Omar Sandoval <osandov@...ndov.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] fd/direct-io: introduce should_dirty for kernel
aio
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 11:44:46PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
>
> - if (dio->is_async && dio->rw == READ)
> + if (dio->is_async && dio->rw == READ && dio->should_dirty)
> bio_set_pages_dirty(bio);
>
> if (sdio->submit_io)
> @@ -463,13 +464,14 @@ static int dio_bio_complete(struct dio *dio, struct bio *bio)
> if (!uptodate)
> dio->io_error = -EIO;
>
> - if (dio->is_async && dio->rw == READ) {
> + if (dio->is_async && dio->rw == READ && dio->should_dirty) {
I'd rather have a ->should_dirrty flag that means we need to call
bio_check_pages_dirty, And set that either if we have a kernel
iovec/bvec or dio->is_async && dio->rw == READ.
But why would we even set this if writing from an iovec?
> bio_check_pages_dirty(bio); /* transfers ownership */
> } else {
> bio_for_each_segment_all(bvec, bio, i) {
> struct page *page = bvec->bv_page;
>
> - if (dio->rw == READ && !PageCompound(page))
> + if (dio->rw == READ && !PageCompound(page) &&
> + dio->should_dirty)
> set_page_dirty_lock(page);
And this unk could also use some explanation.
--
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