On Thu, Aug 18, 2011 at 06:28:45PM -0700, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
> @@ -800,12 +800,17 @@ ssize_t ext4_ind_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb,
> }
>
> retry:
> - if (rw == READ && ext4_should_dioread_nolock(inode))
> + if (rw == READ && ext4_should_dioread_nolock(inode)) {
> + if (unlikely(!list_empty(&ei->i_completed_io_list))) {
> + mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
> + ext4_flush_completed_IO(inode);
> + mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> + }
Doesn't this largely invalidate the reasons for using dioread_nolock
in the first place, which was to avoid taking the i_mutex for
performance reasons? If we are willing to solve the problem this way,
I wonder if we be better off just simply telling users to disable
dioread_nolock if they care about cache consistency between DIO reads
and buffered writes?
(Yes, I do understand that in the hopefully common case where a user
is not trying to do buffered writes and DIO reads at the same time,
we'll just take and release the mutex very quickly, but still, it's
got to have a performance impact.)
I seem to recall a conversation I had with Stephen Tweedie over a
decade ago, where he noted that many other Unix systems made
absolutely no cache consistency guarantees with respect to DIO and the
page cache, but he wanted to set a higher standard for Linux. Which
is fair enough, but I wonder if for the case of dioread_nolock, since
its raison d'etre is to avoid the i_mutex lock, to simply just say
that one of the side effects of dioread_nolock is that (for now) the
cache consistency guarantees are repealed if this mount option is
chosen.
What do folks think?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
