On Sun, Mar 26, 2023 at 04:39:10PM -0700, h...@infradead.org wrote: > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 05:46:37PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > Yes, and that was exactly my point: with LFS mode, O_DIRECT write > > > should never overwrite anything. So I do not see why direct writes > > > should be handled as buffered writes with zoned devices. Am I missing > > > something here ? > > > > That's an easiest way to serialize block allocation and submit_bio when > > users > > are calling buffered writes and direct writes in parallel. :) > > I just felt that if we can manage both of them in direct write path along > > with > > buffered write path, we may be able to avoid memcpy. > > Yes. Note that right now f2fs doesn't really support proper O_DIRECT > for buffered I/O either, as non-overwrites require a feature similar > to unwritten extents, or a split of the allocation phase and the record > metdata phase. If we'd go for the second choice for f2fs, which is the > more elegant thing to do, you'll get the zoned direct I/O write support > almost for free.
So, Jaegeuk, do you think suporting direct io proper is the way to do to fix this issue? That looks like a better solution to me (at least long term). Until that would be put into place, do you want my fix (with your code style fixes) rebased and resent? Cheers, Hans _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
