Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751424Ab3GXEqy (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:46:54 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f53.google.com ([209.85.220.53]:32886 "EHLO mail-pa0-f53.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750887Ab3GXEqw (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Jul 2013 00:46:52 -0400 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:46:44 +0800 From: majianpeng To: sage Cc: ceph-devel , linux-kernel Reply-To: majianpeng Subject: Re: Re: [PATCH] ceph: Don't use ceph-sync-mode for synchronous-fs. References: <201306271556037311581@gmail.com>, <201307161949279533980@gmail.com> <201307240828220999500@gmail.com>, X-Priority: 3 X-GUID: 7FABF9DC-66BF-4D53-868E-1897418653CA X-Has-Attach: no X-Mailer: Foxmail 7.0.1.90[en] Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <201307241246395750351@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from base64 to 8bit by mail.home.local id r6O4l1BT025552 Content-Length: 2408 Lines: 67 >Hi, > >Sorry for the slow review. The patch looks good, but I have a hard time >understanding your changelog... is it okay if I change it to something >like: > > >Sending reads and writes through the sync read/write paths bypasses the >page cache, which is not expected or generally a good idea. Removing >the write check is safe as there is a conditional vfs_fsync_range() later >in ceph_aio_write that already checks for the same flag (via >IS_SYNC(inode)). > Very good. It's my fault. I will notice the message later. Thanks ! Jianpeng Ma >? > >Thanks! >sage > > >On Wed, 24 Jul 2013, majianpeng wrote: > >> Ping >> >Hi sage, >> > How about this patch?Can you give some advisement? >> >Thanks! >> >Jianpeng Ma >> >>At now for synchronous-fs, all write-operations use ceph_sync_mode. >> >>But for the file which opened with O_SYNC, it don't use sync_mode. >> >>The behaviour of them should be the same. >> >>For fs which mounted using '-o sync', it want all I/O to the filesystem >> >>should be done synchronously.But the ceph-sync-mode don't be suitful >> >>for.For example,using ceph-sync-mode the content of file don't have in >> >>memory.This will cause the following read only from osd rather than >> >>memory. >> >> >> >>Signed-off-by: Jianpeng Ma >> >>--- >> >> fs/ceph/file.c | 2 -- >> >> 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) >> >> >> >>diff --git a/fs/ceph/file.c b/fs/ceph/file.c >> >>index 656e169..44670ad 100644 >> >>--- a/fs/ceph/file.c >> >>+++ b/fs/ceph/file.c >> >>@@ -659,7 +659,6 @@ again: >> >> >> >> if ((got & (CEPH_CAP_FILE_CACHE|CEPH_CAP_FILE_LAZYIO)) == 0 || >> >> (iocb->ki_filp->f_flags & O_DIRECT) || >> >>- (inode->i_sb->s_flags & MS_SYNCHRONOUS) || >> >> (fi->flags & CEPH_F_SYNC)) >> >> /* hmm, this isn't really async... */ >> >> ret = ceph_sync_read(filp, base, len, ppos, &checkeof); >> >>@@ -764,7 +763,6 @@ retry_snap: >> >> >> >> if ((got & (CEPH_CAP_FILE_BUFFER|CEPH_CAP_FILE_LAZYIO)) == 0 || >> >> (iocb->ki_filp->f_flags & O_DIRECT) || >> >>- (inode->i_sb->s_flags & MS_SYNCHRONOUS) || >> >> (fi->flags & CEPH_F_SYNC)) { >> >> mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex); >> >> written = ceph_sync_write(file, iov->iov_base, count, >> >>-- >> >>1.8.1.2????{.n?+???????+%?????ݶ??w??{.n?+????{??G?????{ay?ʇڙ?,j??f???h?????????z_??(?階?ݢj"???m??????G????????????&???~???iO???z??v?^?m???? ????????I?