[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6c7676ae-f0a3-4a9d-bcfa-f6fa0a03c928@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2024 14:09:16 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: Steve French <stfrench@...rosoft.com>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
Enzo Matsumiya <ematsumiya@...e.de>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>, netfs@...ts.linux.dev,
v9fs@...ts.linux.dev, linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfs: Fix setting of BDP_ASYNC from iocb flags
On 5/21/24 2:05 PM, David Howells wrote:
> Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>
>> On 5/21/24 9:54 AM, David Howells wrote:
>>> Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> However, I'll note that BDP_ASYNC is horribly named, it should be
>>>> BDP_NOWAIT instead. But that's a separate thing, fix looks correct
>>>> as-is.
>>>
>>> I thought IOCB_NOWAIT was related to RWF_NOWAIT, but apparently not from the
>>> code.
>>
>> It is, something submitted with RWF_NOWAIT should have IOCB_NOWAIT set.
>> But RWF_NOWAIT isn't the sole user of IOCB_NOWAIT, and no assumptions
>> should be made about whether something is sync or async based on whether
>> or not RWF_NOWAIT is set. Those aren't related other than _some_ proper
>> async IO will have IOCB_NOWAIT set, and others will not.
>
> Are you sure? RWF_NOWAIT seems to set IOCB_NOIO.
As it should, no-wait should imply not blocking on other IO. This is
completely orthogonal to whether or not it's async or sync IO.
I have a distinct feeling we're talking past each other :-)
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists