Re: [PATCH 2/8] swap: lock i_mutex for swap_writepage direct_IO

[Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>]

On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 12:24:37AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 17, 2014 at 08:20:21AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> > Where the hell would those other references come from?  We open the damn
> > thing in sys_swapon(), never put it into descriptor tables, etc. and
> > the only reason why we use filp_close() instead of fput() is that we
> > would miss ->flush() otherwise.
> > 
> > Said that, why not simply *open* it with O_DIRECT to start with and be done
> > with that?  It's not as if those guys came preopened by caller - swapon(2)
> > gets a pathname and does opening itself.
> 
> Oops, should have dug deeper into the code.  For some reason I assumed
> the fd is passed in from userspace.
> 
> The suggestion from Al is much better, given that we never do normal
> I/O on the swapfile, just the bmap + direct bio submission which I hope
> could go away in favor of the direct I/O variant in the long run.

See my previous message. If we use O_DIRECT on the original open, then
filesystems that implement bmap but not direct_IO will no longer work.
These are the ones that I found in my tree:

adfs
befs
bfs
ecryptfs
efs
freevxfs
hpfs
isofs
minix
ntfs
omfs
qnx4
qnx6
sysv
ufs

Several of these are read only, and I can't imagine that anyone is using
a swapfile on any of the rest, but if someone is, this would be a
regression, wouldn't it?

-- 
Omar

--
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>