On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 11:30:47AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On 10/17/20 10:28 AM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 17, 2020 at 09:30:59AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> Once we've copied some data for an iocb that is marked with IOCB_WAITQ,
> >> we should no longer attempt to async lock a new page. Instead make sure
> >> we return the copied amount, and let the caller retry, instead of
> >> returning -EIOCBQUEUED for a new page.
> >>
> >> This should only be possible with read-ahead disabled on the below
> >> device, and multiple threads racing on the same file. Haven't been able
> >> to reproduce on anything else.
> >
> > Wouldn't this do the job just as well?
> >
> > @@ -2211,6 +2211,8 @@ ssize_t generic_file_buffered_read(struct kiocb *iocb,
> >
> > put_page(page);
> > written += ret;
> > + if (iocb->ki_flags & IOCB_WAITQ)
> > + iocb->ki_flags |= IOCB_NOWAIT;
> > if (!iov_iter_count(iter))
> > goto out;
> > if (ret < nr) {
>
> Indeed, that's cleaner. Let me re-test with that just to be on the safe
> side, and I'll post a new one.
generic_file_buffered_read() has written passed in, which can be nonzero (DIO
fallback) - we probably want the check to be at the top of the loop.
