On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:53:37AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >> On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Jon Derrick
> >> <jonathan.derrick@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> When DAX is not compiled into the kernel or the device does not support
> >>> direct-access, the block device file's inode flags are fully cleared.
> >>> This patch changes it to only clear the S_DAX flag when DAX is disabled.
> >>>
> >>> This reverts to i_flags behavior prior to
> >>> bbab37ddc20bae4709bca8745c128c4f46fe63c5
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jon Derrick <jonathan.derrick@xxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>> fs/block_dev.c | 2 +-
> >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
> >>> index 20a2c02..d4fa725 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/block_dev.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/block_dev.c
> >>> @@ -1208,7 +1208,7 @@ static int __blkdev_get(struct block_device *bdev, fmode_t mode, int for_part)
> >>> if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BLK_DEV_DAX) && disk->fops->direct_access)
> >>> bdev->bd_inode->i_flags = S_DAX;
> >>> else
> >>> - bdev->bd_inode->i_flags = 0;
> >>> + bdev->bd_inode->i_flags &= ~S_DAX;
> >>
> >> Setting S_DAX is atomic, but the above change makes it a non-atomic
> >> read-modify-write. Do we need exclusion / locking in this path?
> >
> > First, I don't see how you'd ever get a read-modify-write here, as S_DAX
> > surely won't ever be set if direct_access isn't supported. Second,
> > there is existing code that already does this very thing. See further
> > down in __blkdev_get:
> >
> > if (!ret) {
> > bd_set_size(bdev,(loff_t)get_capacity(disk)<<9);
> > if (!blkdev_dax_capable(bdev))
> > bdev->bd_inode->i_flags &= ~S_DAX;
> > }
> >
> > What relies on S_DAX being set or cleared atomically?
>
> So, when I wrote the above "&= ~S_DAX" I was worried about the
> non-atomic update with respect to the BLKDAXSET ioctl, but we killed
> BLKDAXSET so the worry went away. Now an inode flag setting ioctl is
> back for the S_HIPRI case. Can that collide with these other flag
> touches?
The S_DAX case is unclear to me, but the new ioctl certainly does need a i_mutex lock and to use inode_set_flags.
--
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
