From: cem@kernel.org
To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: hch@lst.de, dlemoal@kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: factor out isize updates from xfs_dio_write_end_io
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2026 12:55:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260310115555.114197-2-cem@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260310115555.114197-1-cem@kernel.org>
From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@kernel.org>
This is the only code needed for zoned inodes, so factor it out so
we can move zoned inodes ioend to its own callback.
Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com>
---
fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 59 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
index 6246f34df9fd..45ecd743fa32 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
@@ -560,6 +560,41 @@ xfs_zoned_write_space_reserve(
flags, ac);
}
+/*
+ * We need to lock the test/set EOF update as we can be racing with
+ * other IO completions here to update the EOF. Failing to serialise
+ * here can result in EOF moving backwards and Bad Things Happen when
+ * that occurs.
+ *
+ * As IO completion only ever extends EOF, we can do an unlocked check
+ * here to avoid taking the spinlock. If we land within the current EOF,
+ * then we do not need to do an extending update at all, and we don't
+ * need to take the lock to check this. If we race with an update moving
+ * EOF, then we'll either still be beyond EOF and need to take the lock,
+ * or we'll be within EOF and we don't need to take it at all.
+ */
+static int
+xfs_dio_endio_set_isize(
+ struct inode *inode,
+ loff_t offset,
+ ssize_t size)
+{
+ struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
+
+ if (offset + size <= i_size_read(inode))
+ return 0;
+
+ spin_lock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
+ if (offset + size > i_size_read(inode)) {
+ i_size_write(inode, offset + size);
+ spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
+ } else {
+ spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
+ }
+
+ return xfs_setfilesize(ip, offset, size);
+}
+
static int
xfs_dio_write_end_io(
struct kiocb *iocb,
@@ -623,30 +658,8 @@ xfs_dio_write_end_io(
* with the on-disk inode size being outside the in-core inode size. We
* have no other method of updating EOF for AIO, so always do it here
* if necessary.
- *
- * We need to lock the test/set EOF update as we can be racing with
- * other IO completions here to update the EOF. Failing to serialise
- * here can result in EOF moving backwards and Bad Things Happen when
- * that occurs.
- *
- * As IO completion only ever extends EOF, we can do an unlocked check
- * here to avoid taking the spinlock. If we land within the current EOF,
- * then we do not need to do an extending update at all, and we don't
- * need to take the lock to check this. If we race with an update moving
- * EOF, then we'll either still be beyond EOF and need to take the lock,
- * or we'll be within EOF and we don't need to take it at all.
*/
- if (offset + size <= i_size_read(inode))
- goto out;
-
- spin_lock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
- if (offset + size > i_size_read(inode)) {
- i_size_write(inode, offset + size);
- spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
- error = xfs_setfilesize(ip, offset, size);
- } else {
- spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock);
- }
+ error = xfs_dio_endio_set_isize(inode, offset, size);
out:
memalloc_nofs_restore(nofs_flag);
--
2.53.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-03-10 11:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-03-10 11:55 [PATCH 0/4] Zoned device cleanups cem
2026-03-10 11:55 ` cem [this message]
2026-03-10 12:51 ` [PATCH 1/4] xfs: factor out isize updates from xfs_dio_write_end_io Damien Le Moal
2026-03-10 12:52 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-03-10 11:55 ` [PATCH 2/4] xfs: move zoned dio ioend to its own function cem
2026-03-10 12:53 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-03-10 12:54 ` Damien Le Moal
2026-03-10 11:55 ` [PATCH 3/4] xfs: factor out xfs_zone_inc_written cem
2026-03-10 12:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-03-10 12:55 ` Damien Le Moal
2026-03-10 11:55 ` [PATCH 4/4] xfs: opencode xfs_zone_record_blocks cem
2026-03-10 12:54 ` Christoph Hellwig
2026-03-10 12:56 ` Damien Le Moal
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=20260310115555.114197-2-cem@kernel.org \
--to=cem@kernel.org \
--cc=dlemoal@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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