Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fs,block: Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND and handling in direct IO path

Kanchan Joshi
2020-06-30T07:43:12Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2494 bytes --]

On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 12:37:07AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>On 2020/06/30 3:35, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 26, 2020 at 02:50:20AM +0000, Damien Le Moal wrote:
>>> On 2020/06/26 2:18, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
>>>> Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND flag to represent zone-append. User-space
>>>> sends this with write. Add IOCB_ZONE_APPEND which is set in
>>>> kiocb->ki_flags on receiving RWF_ZONE_APPEND.
>>>> Make direct IO submission path use IOCB_ZONE_APPEND to send bio with
>>>> append op. Direct IO completion returns zone-relative offset, in sector
>>>> unit, to upper layer using kiocb->ki_complete interface.
>>>> Report error if zone-append is requested on regular file or on sync
>>>> kiocb (i.e. one without ki_complete).
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kanchan Joshi <joshi.k@samsung.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: SelvaKumar S <selvakuma.s1@samsung.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Arnav Dawn <a.dawn@samsung.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Nitesh Shetty <nj.shetty@samsung.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Javier Gonzalez <javier.gonz@samsung.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/block_dev.c | 28 ++++++++++++++++++++++++----
>>>> include/linux/fs.h | 9 +++++++++
>>>> include/uapi/linux/fs.h | 5 ++++-
>>>> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
>>>> index 47860e5..5180268 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/block_dev.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/block_dev.c
>>>> @@ -185,6 +185,10 @@ static unsigned int dio_bio_write_op(struct kiocb *iocb)
>>>> /* avoid the need for a I/O completion work item */
>>>> if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_DSYNC)
>>>> op |= REQ_FUA;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_ZONE_APPEND)
>>>> + op |= REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND;
>>>
>>> This is wrong. REQ_OP_WRITE is already set in the declaration of "op". How can
>>> this work ?
>> REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND will override the REQ_WRITE op, while previously set op
>> flags (REQ_FUA etc.) will be retained. But yes, this can be made to look
>> cleaner.
>> V3 will include the other changes you pointed out. Thanks for the review.
>>
>
>REQ_OP_WRITE and REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND are different bits, so there is no
>"override". A well formed BIO bi_opf is one op+flags. Specifying multiple OP
>codes does not make sense.

one op+flags behavior is retained here. OP is not about bits (op flags are).
Had it been, REQ_OP_WRITE (value 1) can not be differentiated from
REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND (value 13).
We do not do "bio_op(bio) & REQ_OP_WRITE", rather we look at the
absolute value "bio_op(bio) == REQ_OP_WRITE".

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 0 bytes --]