[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CY4PR04MB3751213DD4B370F58A63368BE76F0@CY4PR04MB3751.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2020 00:37:07 +0000
From: Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@....com>
To: Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>
CC: "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"viro@...iv.linux.org.uk" <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"bcrl@...ck.org" <bcrl@...ck.org>,
"asml.silence@...il.com" <asml.silence@...il.com>,
"hch@...radead.org" <hch@...radead.org>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"mb@...htnvm.io" <mb@...htnvm.io>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-aio@...ck.org" <linux-aio@...ck.org>,
"io-uring@...r.kernel.org" <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
"selvakuma.s1@...sung.com" <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>,
"nj.shetty@...sung.com" <nj.shetty@...sung.com>,
"javier.gonz@...sung.com" <javier.gonz@...sung.com>,
Arnav Dawn <a.dawn@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fs,block: Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND and handling
in direct IO path
On 2020/06/30 3:35, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:50:20AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>> On 2020/06/26 2:18, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>>> Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND flag to represent zone-append. User-space
>>> sends this with write. Add IOCB_ZONE_APPEND which is set in
>>> kiocb->ki_flags on receiving RWF_ZONE_APPEND.
>>> Make direct IO submission path use IOCB_ZONE_APPEND to send bio with
>>> append op. Direct IO completion returns zone-relative offset, in sector
>>> unit, to upper layer using kiocb->ki_complete interface.
>>> Report error if zone-append is requested on regular file or on sync
>>> kiocb (i.e. one without ki_complete).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@...sung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@...sung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Arnav Dawn <a.dawn@...sung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@...sung.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@...sung.com>
>>> ---
>>> fs/block_dev.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>> include/linux/fs.h | 9 +++++++++
>>> include/uapi/linux/fs.h | 5 ++++-
>>> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
>>> index 47860e5..5180268 100644
>>> --- a/fs/block_dev.c
>>> +++ b/fs/block_dev.c
>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ static unsigned int dio_bio_write_op(struct kiocb *iocb)
>>> /* avoid the need for a I/O completion work item */
>>> if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DSYNC)
>>> op |= REQ_FUA;
>>> +
>>> + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ZONE_APPEND)
>>> + op |= REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND;
>>
>> This is wrong. REQ_OP_WRITE is already set in the declaration of "op". How can
>> this work ?
> REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND will override the REQ_WRITE op, while previously set op
> flags (REQ_FUA etc.) will be retained. But yes, this can be made to look
> cleaner.
> V3 will include the other changes you pointed out. Thanks for the review.
>
REQ_OP_WRITE and REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND are different bits, so there is no
"override". A well formed BIO bi_opf is one op+flags. Specifying multiple OP
codes does not make sense.
--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research
Powered by blists - more mailing lists