[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150609062943.GA32395@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 23:29:43 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleikamp@...cle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>,
Maxim Patlasov <mpatlasov@...allels.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/5] fs: kiocb: introduce IOCB_DONT_DIRTY_PAGE flag
for direct IO
On Sat, Jun 06, 2015 at 08:42:33AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> Both ITER_KVEC and ITER_BVEC doesn't mean the pages are kernel
> page, for example of loop and swap. That is why this patch is more flexiable,
> and won't cause regression since the users may have different dirtying
> rules as you mentioned last time.
>
> http://marc.info/?t=143093223200001&r=1&w=2
Again, we never dirty pages for the caller when doing general purpose
kernel I/O. For loop we either don't need it (totally in-kernel block
I/O) or the caller takes care of it (direct I/O on the loop device).
The swap code currently only uses ->direct_IO and thus isn't affected
by this flag. If we use it for write the low-level I/O code should not
dirty the page either.
So to repeat myself: for the current state of affairs adding a flag
that every sensible user has to set is a horrible interface. If for
some unforseen reason we'll need the flag later on it should have
reverse polarity, and only be added when needed.
--
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