Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754000AbaLVH0o (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:26:44 -0500 Received: from mail-pa0-f45.google.com ([209.85.220.45]:38489 "EHLO mail-pa0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750928AbaLVH0m (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 02:26:42 -0500 Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2014 23:26:38 -0800 From: Omar Sandoval To: Al Viro Cc: Christoph Hellwig , Jan Kara , Andrew Morton , Trond Myklebust , David Sterba , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/8] swap: lock i_mutex for swap_writepage direct_IO Message-ID: <20141222072638.GB24722@mew> References: <20141215162705.GA23887@quack.suse.cz> <20141215165615.GA19041@infradead.org> <20141220065133.GC22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141220065133.GC22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 06:51:33AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 08:56:15AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:27:05PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Sun 14-12-14 21:26:56, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > > > The generic write code locks i_mutex for a direct_IO. Swap-over-NFS > > > > doesn't grab the mutex because nfs_direct_IO doesn't expect i_mutex to > > > > be held, but most direct_IO implementations do. > > > I think you are speaking about direct IO writes only, aren't you? For DIO > > > reads we don't hold i_mutex AFAICS. And also for DIO writes we don't > > > necessarily hold i_mutex - see for example XFS which doesn't take i_mutex > > > for direct IO writes. It uses it's internal rwlock for this (see > > > xfs_file_dio_aio_write()). So I think this is just wrong. > > > > The problem is that the use of ->direct_IO by the swap code is a gross > > layering violation. ->direct_IO is a callback for the filesystem, and > > the swap code need to call ->read_iter instead of ->readpage and > > ->write_tier instead of ->direct_IO, and leave the locking to the > > filesystem. > > The thing is, ->read_iter() and ->write_iter() might decide to fall back to > buffered IO path. XFS is unusual in that respect - there O_DIRECT ends up > with short write in such case. Other filesystems, OTOH... Alright, now what? Using ->direct_IO directly is pretty much a no go because of the different locking conventions as was pointed out. Maybe some "no, really, just direct I/O" iocb flag? -- Omar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/