On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 03:46:13PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote: > On 8/28/23 05:32, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 27, 2023 at 09:28:31PM +0800, Hao Xu wrote: > > > From: Hao Xu <howeyxu@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Add a boolean parameter for file_accessed() to support nowait semantics. > > > Currently it is true only with io_uring as its initial caller. > > > > So why do we need to do this as part of this series? Apparently it > > hasn't caused any problems for filemap_read(). > > > > We need this parameter to indicate if nowait semantics should be enforced in > touch_atime(), There are locks and maybe IOs in it. That's not my point. We currently call file_accessed() and touch_atime() for nowait reads and nowait writes. You haven't done anything to fix those. I suspect you can trim this patchset down significantly by avoiding fixing the file_accessed() problem. And then come back with a later patchset that fixes it for all nowait i/o. Or do a separate prep series first that fixes it for the existing nowait users, and then a second series to do all the directory stuff. I'd do the first thing. Just ignore the problem. Directory atime updates cause I/O so rarely that you can afford to ignore it. Almost everyone uses relatime or nodiratime. -- Linux-cachefs mailing list Linux-cachefs@xxxxxxxxxx https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cachefs
