Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 14 Jul 2020 13:00:11 +0200
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
        Goldwyn Rodrigues <rgoldwyn@suse.de>,
        Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@wdc.com>,
        Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jth@kernel.org>,
        linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        cluster-devel@redhat.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iomap: fall back to buffered writes for
 invalidation failures
Message-ID: <20200714110011.GB16178@lst.de>
References: <20200713074633.875946-1-hch@lst.de> <20200713074633.875946-3-hch@lst.de> <20200713115509.GW12769@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200713115509.GW12769@casper.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01)
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 12:55:09PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2020 at 09:46:33AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > Failing to invalid the page cache means data in incoherent, which is
> > a very bad state for the system.  Always fall back to buffered I/O
> > through the page cache if we can't invalidate mappings.
> 
> Is that the right approach though?  I don't have a full picture in my head,
> but wouldn't we be better off marking these pages as !Uptodate and doing
> the direct I/O?

Isn't that a problem if e.g. pages are mapped into userspace and mlocked?