Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220617071027.6569-1-dharamhans87@gmail.com> <20220617071027.6569-2-dharamhans87@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220617071027.6569-2-dharamhans87@gmail.com>
From:   Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Date:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 09:36:10 +0200
Message-ID: <CAJfpegtRzDbcayn7MYKpgO1MBFeBihyfRB402JHtJkbXg1dvLg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/1] Allow non-extending parallel direct writes on the
 same file.
To:     Dharmendra Singh <dharamhans87@gmail.com>
Cc:     Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        fuse-devel <fuse-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>,
        Dharmendra Singh <dsingh@ddn.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 17 Jun 2022 at 09:10, Dharmendra Singh <dharamhans87@gmail.com> wrote:

> This patch relaxes the exclusive lock for direct non-extending writes
> only. File size extending writes might not need the lock either,
> but we are not entirely sure if there is a risk to introduce any
> kind of regression. Furthermore, benchmarking with fio does not
> show a difference between patch versions that take on file size
> extension a) an exclusive lock and b) a shared lock.

I'm okay with this, but ISTR Bernd noted a real-life scenario where
this is not sufficient.  Maybe that should be mentioned in the patch
header?

Thanks,
Miklos