lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Jun]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] fs,block: Introduce RWF_ZONE_APPEND and handling in direct IO path
Date
On 2020/06/30 16:43, Kanchan Joshi wrote:
> 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".

Sure, the ops are not bits like the flags, but (excluding the flags) doing:

op |= REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND;

will give you op == (REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_OP_ZONE_APPEND). That's not what you want...



--
Damien Le Moal
Western Digital Research

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-06-30 09:52    [W:0.059 / U:34.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site