All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] direct-io: move aio_complete into ->end_io
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:35:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100625103550.GA3586@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100625063610.GA4128@infradead.org>

On Fri 25-06-10 02:36:10, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:59:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >   Moreover the async testing you do does not seem to be completely right.
> > dio->is_async is a flag that controls whether dio code waits for IO to be
> > completed or not. In particular it is not set for AIO that spans beyond
> > current i_size so it does not seem to be exactly what you need (at least
> > for ext4 it isn't). I think that is_sync_kiocb() is a test that should be
> > used to recognize AIO - and that has an advantage that you don't have to
> > pass the is_async flag around.
> 
> No.  is_sync_kiocb() means the ioctb was not intended as sync I/O from
> the start.  But we can only call aio_complete when we returned
> -EIOCBQUEUED from ->aio_read/write.  Take a look at the comment near the
> end of direct_io_worker().
  Ah, I see. Thanks for explanation. It's ugly but I also don't see a
nicer way how to handle this.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] direct-io: move aio_complete into ->end_io
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 12:35:50 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100625103550.GA3586@quack.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100625063610.GA4128@infradead.org>

On Fri 25-06-10 02:36:10, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 24, 2010 at 11:59:22PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >   Moreover the async testing you do does not seem to be completely right.
> > dio->is_async is a flag that controls whether dio code waits for IO to be
> > completed or not. In particular it is not set for AIO that spans beyond
> > current i_size so it does not seem to be exactly what you need (at least
> > for ext4 it isn't). I think that is_sync_kiocb() is a test that should be
> > used to recognize AIO - and that has an advantage that you don't have to
> > pass the is_async flag around.
> 
> No.  is_sync_kiocb() means the ioctb was not intended as sync I/O from
> the start.  But we can only call aio_complete when we returned
> -EIOCBQUEUED from ->aio_read/write.  Take a look at the comment near the
> end of direct_io_worker().
  Ah, I see. Thanks for explanation. It's ugly but I also don't see a
nicer way how to handle this.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2010-06-25 10:36 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-06-22 12:21 [PATCH 0/2] Fix aio completion vs unwritten extents Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-22 12:21 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-22 12:21 ` [PATCH 1/2] direct-io: move aio_complete into ->end_io Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-22 12:21   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-24 21:59   ` Jan Kara
2010-06-24 21:59     ` Jan Kara
2010-06-25  6:36     ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-25  6:36       ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-25 10:35       ` Jan Kara [this message]
2010-06-25 10:35         ` Jan Kara
2010-06-22 12:21 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfs: move aio completion after unwritten extent conversion Christoph Hellwig
2010-06-22 12:21   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-16  6:04 ` [PATCH 0/2] Fix aio completion vs unwritten extents Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-16  6:04   ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-16  6:30   ` Theodore Tso
2010-07-16  6:30     ` Theodore Tso
2010-07-18  5:00     ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-18  5:00       ` Christoph Hellwig

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100625103550.GA3586@quack.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.