On 06/05, Hans Holmberg wrote: > > 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?
Yes, it's already landed in 6.4-rc1 of Linus tree, and surely I have the topic in my long term plan. Thanks, > > Cheers, > Hans _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
