All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] swap: don't add ITER_BVEC flag to direct_IO rw
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 06:16:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141215061601.GT22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f9e8a7dcdf08bd2dd433f1a42690ab8e67e7915.1418618044.git.osandov@osandov.com>

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 09:26:57PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> The rw argument to direct_IO has some ill-defined semantics. Some
> filesystems (e.g., ext4, FAT) decide whether they're doing a write with
> rw == WRITE, but others (e.g., XFS) check rw & WRITE. Let's set a good
> example in the swap file code and say ITER_BVEC belongs in
> iov_iter->flags but not in rw. This caters to the least common
> denominator and avoids a sweeping change of every direct_IO
> implementation for now.

Frankly, this is bogus.  If anything, let's just kill the first argument
completely - ->direct_IO() can always pick it from iter->type.

As for catering to the least common denominator...  To hell with the lowest
common denominator.  How many instances of ->direct_IO() do we have, anyway?
24 in the mainline (and we don't give a flying fuck for out-of-tree code, as
a matter of policy).  Moreover, several are of "do nothing" variety.

FWIW, 'rw' is a mess.  We used to have this:
	READ: O_DIRECT read
	WRITE: O_DIRECT write
	KERNEL_WRITE: swapout

These days KERNEL_WRITE got replaced with ITER_BVEC | WRITE.  The thing is,
we have a bunch of places where we explicitly checked for being _equal_ to
WRITE.  I.e. the checks that gave a negative on swapouts.  I suspect that most
of them are wrong and should trigger on all writes, including swapouts, but
I really didn't want to dig into that pile of fun back then.  That's the
main reason why 'rw' argument has survived at all...

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk>
To: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@primarydata.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] swap: don't add ITER_BVEC flag to direct_IO rw
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2014 06:16:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141215061601.GT22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5f9e8a7dcdf08bd2dd433f1a42690ab8e67e7915.1418618044.git.osandov@osandov.com>

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 09:26:57PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> The rw argument to direct_IO has some ill-defined semantics. Some
> filesystems (e.g., ext4, FAT) decide whether they're doing a write with
> rw == WRITE, but others (e.g., XFS) check rw & WRITE. Let's set a good
> example in the swap file code and say ITER_BVEC belongs in
> iov_iter->flags but not in rw. This caters to the least common
> denominator and avoids a sweeping change of every direct_IO
> implementation for now.

Frankly, this is bogus.  If anything, let's just kill the first argument
completely - ->direct_IO() can always pick it from iter->type.

As for catering to the least common denominator...  To hell with the lowest
common denominator.  How many instances of ->direct_IO() do we have, anyway?
24 in the mainline (and we don't give a flying fuck for out-of-tree code, as
a matter of policy).  Moreover, several are of "do nothing" variety.

FWIW, 'rw' is a mess.  We used to have this:
	READ: O_DIRECT read
	WRITE: O_DIRECT write
	KERNEL_WRITE: swapout

These days KERNEL_WRITE got replaced with ITER_BVEC | WRITE.  The thing is,
we have a bunch of places where we explicitly checked for being _equal_ to
WRITE.  I.e. the checks that gave a negative on swapouts.  I suspect that most
of them are wrong and should trigger on all writes, including swapouts, but
I really didn't want to dig into that pile of fun back then.  That's the
main reason why 'rw' argument has survived at all...

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2014-12-15  6:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 63+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-12-15  5:26 [PATCH 0/8] clean up and generalize swap-over-NFS Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26 ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26 ` [PATCH 1/8] nfs: follow direct I/O write locking convention Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26   ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15 12:49   ` Trond Myklebust
2014-12-15 12:49     ` Trond Myklebust
2014-12-15 15:42     ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15 15:42       ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26 ` [PATCH 2/8] swap: lock i_mutex for swap_writepage direct_IO Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26   ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15 16:27   ` Jan Kara
2014-12-15 16:27     ` Jan Kara
2014-12-15 16:56     ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-15 16:56       ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-15 22:11       ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15 22:11         ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-16  8:35         ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-16  8:35           ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-16  8:35           ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-16  8:56           ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-16  8:56             ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-17  8:06             ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-17  8:06               ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-17  8:20               ` Al Viro
2014-12-17  8:20                 ` Al Viro
2014-12-17  8:24                 ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-17  8:24                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-17 14:58                   ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-17 14:58                     ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-17 18:52                     ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-17 18:52                       ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-17 22:03                       ` Al Viro
2014-12-17 22:03                         ` Al Viro
2014-12-19  6:24                         ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-19  6:24                           ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-19  6:28                           ` Al Viro
2014-12-19  6:28                             ` Al Viro
2014-12-19  6:28                             ` Al Viro
2014-12-20  6:51       ` Al Viro
2014-12-20  6:51         ` Al Viro
2014-12-22  7:26         ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-22  7:26           ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-23  9:37         ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-23  9:37           ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-23  9:37           ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-12-15  5:26 ` [PATCH 3/8] swap: don't add ITER_BVEC flag to direct_IO rw Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26   ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  6:16   ` Al Viro [this message]
2014-12-15  6:16     ` Al Viro
2014-12-15 15:57     ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15 15:57       ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26 ` [PATCH 4/8] iov_iter: add iov_iter_bvec and convert callers Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26   ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26 ` [PATCH 5/8] direct-io: don't dirty ITER_BVEC pages on read Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:26   ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:27 ` [PATCH 6/8] nfs: don't dirty ITER_BVEC pages read through direct I/O Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:27   ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  6:17   ` Al Viro
2014-12-15  6:17     ` Al Viro
2014-12-15  5:27 ` [PATCH 7/8] swap: use direct I/O for SWP_FILE swap_readpage Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:27   ` Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:27 ` [PATCH 8/8] vfs: update swap_{,de}activate documentation Omar Sandoval
2014-12-15  5:27   ` Omar Sandoval

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=20141215061601.GT22149@ZenIV.linux.org.uk \
    --to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=osandov@osandov.com \
    --cc=trond.myklebust@primarydata.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.