On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 05:27:05PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Sun 14-12-14 21:26:56, Omar Sandoval wrote: > > The generic write code locks i_mutex for a direct_IO. Swap-over-NFS > > doesn't grab the mutex because nfs_direct_IO doesn't expect i_mutex to > > be held, but most direct_IO implementations do. > I think you are speaking about direct IO writes only, aren't you? For DIO > reads we don't hold i_mutex AFAICS. And also for DIO writes we don't > necessarily hold i_mutex - see for example XFS which doesn't take i_mutex > for direct IO writes. It uses it's internal rwlock for this (see > xfs_file_dio_aio_write()). So I think this is just wrong. The problem is that the use of ->direct_IO by the swap code is a gross layering violation. ->direct_IO is a callback for the filesystem, and the swap code need to call ->read_iter instead of ->readpage and ->write_tier instead of ->direct_IO, and leave the locking to the filesystem. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>