On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:35:43AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 02:11:00PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> > Ok, I got the swap code working with ->read_iter/->write_iter without
> > too much trouble. I wanted to double check before I submit if there's
> > any gotchas involved with adding the O_DIRECT flag to a file pointer
> > after it has been opened -- swapon opens the swapfile before we know if
> > we're using the SWP_FILE infrastructure, and we need to add O_DIRECT so
> > ->{read,write}_iter use direct I/O, but we can't add O_DIRECT to the
> > original open without excluding filesystems that support the old bmap
> > path but not direct I/O.
>
> In general just adding O_DIRECT is a problem. However given that the
> swap file is locked against any other access while in use it seems ok
> in this particular case. Just make sure to clear it on swapoff, and
> write a detailed comment explaining the situation.
I'll admit that I'm a bit confused. I want to do this:
diff --git a/mm/swapfile.c b/mm/swapfile.c
index 8798b2e..5145c09 100644
--- a/mm/swapfile.c
+++ b/mm/swapfile.c
@@ -1728,6 +1728,9 @@ static int setup_swap_extents(struct swap_info_struct *sis, sector_t *span)
}
if (mapping->a_ops->swap_activate) {
+ if (!mapping->a_ops->direct_IO)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ swap_file->f_flags |= O_DIRECT;
ret = mapping->a_ops->swap_activate(sis, swap_file, span);
if (!ret) {
sis->flags |= SWP_FILE;
This seems to be more or less equivalent to doing a fcntl(F_SETFL) to
add the O_DIRECT flag to swap_file (which is a struct file *). Swapoff
calls filp_close on swap_file, so I don't see why it's necessary to
clear the flag.
--
Omar
--
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>