Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Thu, 13 Apr 2023 22:11:28 -0700
From:   Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To:     Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc:     Bernd Schubert <bschubert@ddn.com>, axboe@kernel.dk,
        io-uring@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
        dsingh@ddn.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] fs: add FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE flag
Message-ID: <ZDjggMCGautPUDpW@infradead.org>
References: <20230307172015.54911-2-axboe@kernel.dk>
 <20230412134057.381941-1-bschubert@ddn.com>
 <CAJfpegt_ZCVodOhQCzF9OqKnCr65mKax0Gu4OTN8M51zP+8TcA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegt_ZCVodOhQCzF9OqKnCr65mKax0Gu4OTN8M51zP+8TcA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Apr 13, 2023 at 09:40:29AM +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote:
> fuse_direct_write_iter():
> 
> bool exclusive_lock =
>     !(ff->open_flags & FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES) ||
>     iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_APPEND ||
>     fuse_direct_write_extending_i_size(iocb, from);
> 
> If the write is size extending, then it will take the lock exclusive.
> OTOH, I guess that it would be unusual for lots of  size extending
> writes to be done in parallel.
> 
> What would be the effect of giving the  FMODE_DIO_PARALLEL_WRITE hint
> and then still serializing the writes?

I have no idea how this flags work, but XFS also takes i_rwsem
exclusively for appends, when the positions and size aren't aligned to
the block size, and a few other cases.