On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 08:26:24AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 05:19:11PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 08:12:46AM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
...
> > > >
> > > > > addr = kmap_atomic(page);
> > > > > - memcpy(addr, iomap->inline_data, size);
> > > > > - memset(addr + size, 0, PAGE_SIZE - size);
> > > > > + memcpy(addr + poff, iomap->inline_data - iomap->offset + pos,
> > > > > size);
> > > >
> > > > I keep seeing this (iomap->inline_data + pos - iomap->offset)
> > > > construction in this patch, maybe it should be a helper?
> > >
> > > I'm fine with this, (but I'm not good at naming), may I ask for
> > > some suggested naming? e.g.
> > >
> > > static inline void *iomap_adjusted_inline_data(iomap, pos)
> > >
> > > does that look good?
> >
> > static inline void *
> > iomap_inline_buf(const struct iomap *iomap, loff_t pos)
> > {
> > return iomap->inline_data + pos - iomap->offset;
> > }
> >
> > (gcc complaints about pointer arithmetic on void pointers notwithstanding)
Ok, will update, thanks!
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > + memset(addr + poff + size, 0, PAGE_SIZE - poff - size);
> > > > > kunmap_atomic(addr);
> > > > > - SetPageUptodate(page);
> > > > > + iomap_set_range_uptodate(page, poff, PAGE_SIZE - poff);
> > > > > + return PAGE_SIZE - poff;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > static inline bool iomap_block_needs_zeroing(struct inode *inode,
> > > > > @@ -245,19 +247,23 @@ iomap_readpage_actor(struct inode *inode,
> > > > > loff_t pos, loff_t length, void *data,
> > > > > loff_t orig_pos = pos;
> > > > > unsigned poff, plen;
> > > > > sector_t sector;
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > > >
> > > > > - if (iomap->type == IOMAP_INLINE) {
> > > > > - WARN_ON_ONCE(pos);
> > > > > - iomap_read_inline_data(inode, page, iomap);
> > > > > - return PAGE_SIZE;
> > > > > - }
> > > > > -
> > > > > - /* zero post-eof blocks as the page may be mapped */
> > > > > iop = iomap_page_create(inode, page);
> > > > > + /* needs to skip some leading uptodate blocks */
> > > > > iomap_adjust_read_range(inode, iop, &pos, length, &poff, &plen);
> > > > > if (plen == 0)
> > > > > goto done;
> > > > >
> > > > > + if (iomap->type == IOMAP_INLINE) {
> > > > > + ret = iomap_read_inline_data(inode, page, iomap, pos);
> > > > > + if (ret < 0)
> > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > + plen = ret;
> > > > > + goto done;
> > > > > + }
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /* zero post-eof blocks as the page may be mapped */
> > > > > if (iomap_block_needs_zeroing(inode, iomap, pos)) {
> > > > > zero_user(page, poff, plen);
> > > > > iomap_set_range_uptodate(page, poff, plen);
> > > > > @@ -589,6 +595,18 @@ __iomap_write_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t
> > > > > pos, unsigned len, int flags,
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static int iomap_write_begin_inline(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos,
> > > > > + struct page *page, struct iomap *srcmap)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + /* needs more work for the tailpacking case, disable for now */
> > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(srcmap->offset != 0))
> > > > > + return -EIO;
> > > > > + if (PageUptodate(page))
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > + iomap_read_inline_data(inode, page, srcmap, 0);
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > static int
> > > > > iomap_write_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos, unsigned len,
> > > > > unsigned flags,
> > > > > struct page **pagep, struct iomap *iomap, struct iomap
> > > > > *srcmap)
> > > > > @@ -618,7 +636,7 @@ iomap_write_begin(struct inode *inode, loff_t
> > > > > pos, unsigned len, unsigned flags,
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > if (srcmap->type == IOMAP_INLINE)
> > > > > - iomap_read_inline_data(inode, page, srcmap);
> > > > > + status = iomap_write_begin_inline(inode, pos, page,
> > > > > srcmap);
> > > > > else if (iomap->flags & IOMAP_F_BUFFER_HEAD)
> > > > > status = __block_write_begin_int(page, pos, len, NULL,
> > > > > srcmap);
> > > > > else
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > > index 9398b8c31323..cbadb99fb88c 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/iomap/direct-io.c
> > > > > @@ -379,22 +379,27 @@ iomap_dio_inline_actor(struct inode *inode,
> > > > > loff_t pos, loff_t length,
> > > > > {
> > > > > struct iov_iter *iter = dio->submit.iter;
> > > > > size_t copied;
> > > > > + void *dst = iomap->inline_data + pos - iomap->offset;
> > > > >
> > > > > - BUG_ON(pos + length > PAGE_SIZE -
> > > > > offset_in_page(iomap->inline_data));
> > > > > + /* inline data must be inside a single page */
> > > > > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(length > PAGE_SIZE -
> > > > > + offset_in_page(iomap->inline_data)))
> > > > > + return -EIO;
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * iomap->inline_data is a kernel-mapped memory page, so we must
> > > > * terminate the write at the end of that page.
> > > > */
> > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(...))
> > > > return -EIO;
> > >
> > > Ok.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > if (dio->flags & IOMAP_DIO_WRITE) {
> > > >
> > > > I thought we weren't allowing writes to an inline mapping unless
> > > > iomap->offset == 0? Why is it necessary to change the directio write
> > > > path? Shouldn't this be:
> > > >
> > > > /* needs more work for the tailpacking case, disable
> > > > for now */
> > > > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pos > 0))
> > > > return -EIO;
> > >
> > > That is because Andreas once pointed out a case in:
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/r/cahpgcmj4t6byxqmo6zzf78wuw01twaevsw5n6s90qwm0q_j...@mail.gmail.com/
> > >
> > > "This should be a WARN_ON_ONCE(srcmap->offset != 0). Otherwise, something
> > > like:
> > >
> > > xfs_io -ft -c 'pwrite 1 2'
> > >
> > > will fail because pos will be 1."
> > >
> > > I think that is reasonable to gfs2. So I changed like this.
> >
> > Ah, right. I forgot that reads are always done for an entire page at a
> > time, whereas writes are of course byte-aligned. I still wonder why any
> > changes are needed for directio write?
>
> Very sorry about that, I misunderstood the hunk, here my original v1
> entirely disabled pos != 0 write direct I/O path like this:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/[email protected]/
> "+ if (WARN_ON_ONCE(pos && (dio->flags & IOMAP_DIO_WRITE)))
> + return -EIO;"
>
> Then Christoph pointed out a case why pos != 0 may not be sufficient:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/[email protected]/
> "I'm pretty sure gfs2 supports direct writes to inline data, so we should
> not disable it. "
Sorry, I was completely buried in the previous comments. I forgot to
mention the last part of this, then Christoph suggested:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/[email protected]/
"We also need to take the offset into account for the write side.
I guess it would be nice to have a local variable for the inline
address to not duplicate that calculation multiple times."
I think that is reasonable since we allow pos != 0 direct write now,
so that was the whole story.
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
>
> Thanks,
> Gao Xiang
>
