On 8/29/23 19:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 03:46:13PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
On 8/28/23 05:32, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 09:28:31PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote:
From: Hao Xu <howe...@tencent.com>
Add a boolean parameter for file_accessed() to support nowait semantics.
Currently it is true only with io_uring as its initial caller.
So why do we need to do this as part of this series? Apparently it
hasn't caused any problems for filemap_read().
We need this parameter to indicate if nowait semantics should be enforced in
touch_atime(), There are locks and maybe IOs in it.
That's not my point. We currently call file_accessed() and
touch_atime() for nowait reads and nowait writes. You haven't done
anything to fix those.
I suspect you can trim this patchset down significantly by avoiding
fixing the file_accessed() problem. And then come back with a later
patchset that fixes it for all nowait i/o. Or do a separate prep series
I'm ok to do that.
first that fixes it for the existing nowait users, and then a second
series to do all the directory stuff.
I'd do the first thing. Just ignore the problem. Directory atime
updates cause I/O so rarely that you can afford to ignore it. Almost
everyone uses relatime or nodiratime.
Hi Matthew,
The previous discussion shows this does cause issues in real
producations:
https://lore.kernel.org/io-uring/2785f009-2ebb-028d-8250-d5f3a3051...@gmail.com/#:~:text=fwiw%2C%20we%27ve%20just%20recently%20had%20similar%20problems%20with%20io_uring%20read/write
--
Linux-cachefs mailing list
Linux-cachefs@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
