From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_file_aio_write_checks
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 15:30:16 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120419203016.GE16881@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120327143826.433267717@bombadil.infradead.org>
On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 10:34:47AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We do not need the ilock for generic_write_checks and the i_size read,
> which are protected by i_mutex and/or iolock, so reduce the ilock
> critical section to just the call to xfs_zero_eof.
So.. I agree that it looks like the only thing we need to protect in
generic_write_checks is the i_size_read.
For buffered io i_size_write is done in generic_write_end, and protected
XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL in xfs_file_buffered_write.
For direct io i_size_write is done in generic_file_direct_write and also
protected by the iolock in xfs_file_dio_aio_write. It's not as clear here
whether that lock is taken exclusive at that time. However, this is handled in
xfs_file_aio_write_checks, where we go io exclusive for xfs_zero_eof. Maybe it
would be best for this to be done more explicitly with respect to the inode
size in xfs_file_dio_aio_write.
Just wanting to show why generic_write_checks is ok protected with just the
iolock...
Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-04-19 20:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-03-27 14:34 [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times V2 Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 1/5] xfs: avoid taking the ilock unnessecarily in xfs_qm_dqattach Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 19:24 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_file_aio_write_checks Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 19:26 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-04-19 20:30 ` Ben Myers [this message]
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 3/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_setattr_size Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 19:26 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-04-19 21:00 ` Ben Myers
2012-04-19 22:43 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 4/5] xfs: push the ilock into xfs_zero_eof Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-02 20:39 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-03-27 14:34 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: use shared ilock mode for direct IO writes by default Christoph Hellwig
2012-04-03 17:01 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-03-27 20:52 ` [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times V2 Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-03-26 21:14 [PATCH 0/5] reduce exclusive ilock hold times Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-26 21:14 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: reduce ilock hold times in xfs_file_aio_write_checks Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-26 22:15 ` Dave Chinner
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=20120419203016.GE16881@sgi.com \
--to=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox