On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 09:52:18AM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 01:30:27PM -0500, Chris Mason wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 01:06:35PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 04:02:24PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > On Thu, Feb 09, 2012 at 10:27:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 07:01:44PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > > > Buffered write(2) is not directly tied to IO, so it's not suitable to
> > > > > > handle plug in generic_file_aio_write().
> > > > >
> > > > > But generic_sync_write() does issue IO for O_SYNC writes, so unless
> > > > > there is plugging at a lower layer in the writeback code then it
> > > > > appears to me that plugging is still necessary (at least inside the
> > > > > sync branch)....
> > > >
> > > > Good catch! It looks that generic_write_sync() eventually calls into
> > > > vfs_fsync_range() which further calls ->fsync(). We may add plugging
> > > > around it:
> > >
> > >
> > > NAK, please keep the plugging down in the fs, or the libraries used but
> > > not common VFS code.
> >
> > Please, what Christoph said. At least for btrfs plugging here is wrong.
>
> OK, I get the point: the fs knows best when to unplug. Since any
> higher level plug nesting will turn such low level efforts into no-op,
> it's highly undesirable to do it in the high level.
It's actually wrong to do plugging around vfs_fsync_range().
Because these call paths
write() with O_SYNC
generic_write_sync()
vfs_fsync_range()
->fsync()
generic_file_fsync()
fsync()
do_fsync()
vfs_fsync()
vfs_fsync_range()
pass arbitrary @size arguments, which may be much larger than the
preferable I/O size, or may cross extent/device boundaries.
generic_file_fsync() starts with a filemap_write_and_wait_range()
call, which already has proper plugging somewhere underneath. Then
followed by metadata writes, which has plugging inside
fsync_buffers_list(). At last, sync_inode_metadata() calls into
->write_inode() which may or may not care plugging.
The other fs specific ->fsync() do similar steps, varying in the
metadata and fs specific housekeeping part.
I'll just drop this code. Shall the fs specific metadata I/O be
plugged accordingly? I'm afraid this is beyond my knowledge base...
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
