On Wed 20-05-20 12:40:50, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Wed, May 20, 2020 at 03:37:28PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 19-05-20 22:57:49, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > S_DAX should only be enabled when the underlying block device supports
> > > dax.
> > >
> > > Change ext4_should_use_dax() to check for device support prior to the
> > > over riding mount option.
> > >
> > > While we are at it change the function to ext4_should_enable_dax() as
> > > this better reflects the ask as well as matches xfs.
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > @@ -4412,7 +4410,13 @@ static bool ext4_should_use_dax(struct inode *inode)
> > > return false;
> > > if (ext4_test_inode_flag(inode, EXT4_INODE_VERITY))
> > > return false;
> > > - return true;
> > > + if (!bdev_dax_supported(inode->i_sb->s_bdev,
> > > + inode->i_sb->s_blocksize))
> > > + return false;
> > > + if (test_opt(inode->i_sb, DAX_ALWAYS))
> > > + return true;
> > > +
> > > + return false;
> > > }
> >
> > Now that I think about it - shouldn't we rather cache the result of
> > bdev_dax_supported() in sb on mount and then just check the flag here?
> > Because bdev_dax_supported() isn't exactly cheap (it does a lot of checks
> > and mappings, tries to read from the pmem, ...).
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
> Not sure which flags are appropriate. So add it here?
Yes, sounds good. Thanks!
Honza
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> index 1a3daf2d18ef..0b4db9ce7756 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> @@ -1979,6 +1979,7 @@ static inline bool ext4_has_incompat_features(struct super_block *sb)
> */
> #define EXT4_FLAGS_RESIZING 0
> #define EXT4_FLAGS_SHUTDOWN 1
> +#define EXT4_FLAGS_BDEV_IS_DAX 2
>
> static inline int ext4_forced_shutdown(struct ext4_sb_info *sbi)
> {
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
