Return-Path: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:2288 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752274Ab3GEVdV (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:33:21 -0400 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r65LXLej015278 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:33:21 -0400 Received: from tonberry.usersys.redhat.com (dhcp145-64.rdu.redhat.com [10.13.145.64]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r65LXKTR015022 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:33:20 -0400 Received: from tonberry.usersys.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tonberry.usersys.redhat.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r65LXKMX010159 for ; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:33:20 -0400 Received: (from smayhew@localhost) by tonberry.usersys.redhat.com (8.14.5/8.14.5/Submit) id r65LXKcR010157 for linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org; Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:33:20 -0400 From: Scott Mayhew To: linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: [PATCH] NFS: Allow nfs_updatepage to extend a write under additional circumstances Date: Fri, 5 Jul 2013 17:33:19 -0400 Message-Id: <1373059999-10127-1-git-send-email-smayhew@redhat.com> Sender: linux-nfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Currently nfs_updatepage allows a write to be extended to cover a full page only if we don't have a byte range lock lock on the file... but if we have a write delegation on the file or if we have the whole file locked for writing then we should be allowed to extend the write as well. Signed-off-by: Scott Mayhew --- fs/nfs/write.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++-------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c index a2c7c28..c8a1bcc 100644 --- a/fs/nfs/write.c +++ b/fs/nfs/write.c @@ -888,6 +888,28 @@ out: return PageUptodate(page) != 0; } +/* If we know the page is up to date, and we're not using byte range locks (or + * if we have the whole file locked for writing), it may be more efficient to + * extend the write to cover the entire page in order to avoid fragmentation + * inefficiencies. + * + * If the file is opened for synchronous writes or if we have a write delegation + * from the server then we can just skip the rest of the checks. + */ +static int nfs_can_extend_write(struct file *file, struct page *page, struct inode *inode) +{ + if (file->f_flags & O_DSYNC) + return 0; + if (nfs_have_delegation(inode, FMODE_WRITE)) + return 1; + if (nfs_write_pageuptodate(page, inode) && (inode->i_flock == NULL || + (inode->i_flock->fl_start == 0 && + inode->i_flock->fl_end == OFFSET_MAX && + inode->i_flock->fl_type != F_RDLCK))) + return 1; + return 0; +} + /* * Update and possibly write a cached page of an NFS file. * @@ -908,14 +930,7 @@ int nfs_updatepage(struct file *file, struct page *page, file->f_path.dentry->d_name.name, count, (long long)(page_file_offset(page) + offset)); - /* If we're not using byte range locks, and we know the page - * is up to date, it may be more efficient to extend the write - * to cover the entire page in order to avoid fragmentation - * inefficiencies. - */ - if (nfs_write_pageuptodate(page, inode) && - inode->i_flock == NULL && - !(file->f_flags & O_DSYNC)) { + if (nfs_can_extend_write(file, page, inode)) { count = max(count + offset, nfs_page_length(page)); offset = 0; } -- 1.7.11.7