Commit df2d6f26 authored by Christoph Hellwig's avatar Christoph Hellwig Committed by Al Viro

fs: always maintain i_dio_count

Maintain i_dio_count for all filesystems, not just those using DIO_LOCKING.
This these filesystems to also protect truncate against direct I/O requests
by using common code.  Right now the only non-DIO_LOCKING filesystem that
appears to do so is XFS, which uses an opencoded variant of the i_dio_count
scheme.

Behaviour doesn't change for filesystems never calling inode_dio_wait.
For ext4 behaviour changes when using the dioread_nonlock option, which
previously was missing any protection between truncate and direct I/O reads.
For ocfs2 that handcrafted i_dio_count manipulations are replaced with
the common code now enable.
Signed-off-by: default avatarChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAl Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
parent 562c72aa
......@@ -297,7 +297,6 @@ static ssize_t dio_complete(struct dio *dio, loff_t offset, ssize_t ret, bool is
aio_complete(dio->iocb, ret, 0);
}
if (dio->flags & DIO_LOCKING)
inode_dio_done(dio->inode);
return ret;
}
......@@ -1185,14 +1184,16 @@ direct_io_worker(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
* For writes this function is called under i_mutex and returns with
* i_mutex held, for reads, i_mutex is not held on entry, but it is
* taken and dropped again before returning.
* The i_dio_count counter keeps track of the number of outstanding
* direct I/O requests, and truncate waits for it to reach zero.
* New references to i_dio_count must only be grabbed with i_mutex
* held.
*
* - if the flags value does NOT contain DIO_LOCKING we don't use any
* internal locking but rather rely on the filesystem to synchronize
* direct I/O reads/writes versus each other and truncate.
*
* To help with locking against truncate we incremented the i_dio_count
* counter before starting direct I/O, and decrement it once we are done.
* Truncate can wait for it to reach zero to provide exclusion. It is
* expected that filesystem provide exclusion between new direct I/O
* and truncates. For DIO_LOCKING filesystems this is done by i_mutex,
* but other filesystems need to take care of this on their own.
*/
ssize_t
__blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
......@@ -1270,12 +1271,12 @@ __blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
goto out;
}
}
}
/*
* Will be decremented at I/O completion time.
*/
atomic_inc(&inode->i_dio_count);
}
/*
* For file extending writes updating i_size before data
......
......@@ -567,10 +567,8 @@ static void ocfs2_dio_end_io(struct kiocb *iocb,
/* this io's submitter should not have unlocked this before we could */
BUG_ON(!ocfs2_iocb_is_rw_locked(iocb));
if (ocfs2_iocb_is_sem_locked(iocb)) {
inode_dio_done(inode);
if (ocfs2_iocb_is_sem_locked(iocb))
ocfs2_iocb_clear_sem_locked(iocb);
}
ocfs2_iocb_clear_rw_locked(iocb);
......
......@@ -2240,7 +2240,6 @@ static ssize_t ocfs2_file_aio_write(struct kiocb *iocb,
relock:
/* to match setattr's i_mutex -> rw_lock ordering */
if (direct_io) {
atomic_inc(&inode->i_dio_count);
have_alloc_sem = 1;
/* communicate with ocfs2_dio_end_io */
ocfs2_iocb_set_sem_locked(iocb);
......@@ -2292,7 +2291,6 @@ relock:
*/
if (direct_io && !can_do_direct) {
ocfs2_rw_unlock(inode, rw_level);
inode_dio_done(inode);
have_alloc_sem = 0;
rw_level = -1;
......@@ -2379,10 +2377,8 @@ out:
ocfs2_rw_unlock(inode, rw_level);
out_sems:
if (have_alloc_sem) {
inode_dio_done(inode);
if (have_alloc_sem)
ocfs2_iocb_clear_sem_locked(iocb);
}
mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
......@@ -2533,7 +2529,6 @@ static ssize_t ocfs2_file_aio_read(struct kiocb *iocb,
*/
if (filp->f_flags & O_DIRECT) {
have_alloc_sem = 1;
atomic_inc(&inode->i_dio_count);
ocfs2_iocb_set_sem_locked(iocb);
ret = ocfs2_rw_lock(inode, 0);
......@@ -2575,10 +2570,9 @@ static ssize_t ocfs2_file_aio_read(struct kiocb *iocb,
}
bail:
if (have_alloc_sem) {
inode_dio_done(inode);
if (have_alloc_sem)
ocfs2_iocb_clear_sem_locked(iocb);
}
if (rw_level != -1)
ocfs2_rw_unlock(inode, rw_level);
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment