Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't use ioends for direct write completions

2016-02-07 Thread Dave Chinner 
On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> We only need to communicate two bits of information to the direct I/O
> completion handler:
> 
>  (1) do we need to convert any unwritten extents in the range
>  (2) do we need to check if we need to update the inode size based
>  on the range passed to the completion handler
> 
> We can use the private data passed to the get_block handler and the
> completion handler as a simple bitmask to communicate this information
> instead of the current complicated infrastructure reusing the ioends
> from the buffer I/O path, and thus avoiding a memory allocation and
> a context switch for any non-trivial direct write.  As a nice side
> effect we also decouple the direct I/O path implementation from that
> of the buffered I/O path.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig 
> Reviewed-by: Brian Foster 

This change is now dependent on the preceeding direct IO API
changes. Do I a) take the DIO API change through the XFS tree, or
b) use the older version of the patch that didn't have this
dependency and let somebody else deal with the API change and merge
issues?

I'm happy to take the DIO API change through the XFS tree, if that's
the fastest/easiest way to get the necessary DIO subsystem fixes
into the mainline tree for XFS. As such, the for-next tree that I'm
building right now will include the DIO API change patch

-Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com

___
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3] quota: Add support for ->get_nextdqblk() for VFS quota

2016-02-07 Thread Dave Chinner 
On Fri, Feb 05, 2016 at 12:05:19PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2016 at 03:28:05PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > Add infrastructure for supporting get_nextdqblk() callback for VFS
> > quotas. Translate the operation into a callback to appropriate
> > filesystem and consequently to quota format callback.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
> 
> I'm a little confused here. What patchset is this dependent on? i.e.
> what introduces the ->get_nextdqblk method?
> 
> The patches I currently have in my XFS working tree introduce this
> (quota: add new quotactl Q_XGETNEXTQUOTA) and everythign else is
> dependent on this. I looked a coupl eof days ago and I wasnt' able
> to find this in your tree.
> 
> I'd much prefer that one of us publish a stable branch with just the
> quotactl() infrastructure (i.e. commands and bits up to the
> ->get_nextdqblk() callback) that we can then both base the different
> subsystem implementations off, rather than one of us having to pull
> in a whole tree of changes just to get the one commit we need...

Jan, I've posted a stable branch with the quotactl() changes and
the XFS implementation here:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git 
xfs-get-next-dquot-4.6

It's currently in the xfs for-next branch for wider testing - I've
done this because I want to get all the pending XFS code out into
for-next land early in this cycle so I can move on and concentrate
on rmap/reflink for the rest of the cycle.

If you want to do this through your tree instead of the XFS tree
then let me know when you publish a branch with quotactl changes in
it so I can rebuild the XFS for-next branch to use that.
Alternatively, i can pull the rest of the generic changes in this
patch set into the branch I already have, so it's all in one place
for ease of testing

Cheeers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com

___
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] xfs: don't use ioends for direct write completions

2016-02-07 Thread Dave Chinner 
On Mon, Feb 08, 2016 at 12:00:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 03, 2016 at 07:40:15PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > We only need to communicate two bits of information to the direct I/O
> > completion handler:
> > 
> >  (1) do we need to convert any unwritten extents in the range
> >  (2) do we need to check if we need to update the inode size based
> >  on the range passed to the completion handler
> > 
> > We can use the private data passed to the get_block handler and the
> > completion handler as a simple bitmask to communicate this information
> > instead of the current complicated infrastructure reusing the ioends
> > from the buffer I/O path, and thus avoiding a memory allocation and
> > a context switch for any non-trivial direct write.  As a nice side
> > effect we also decouple the direct I/O path implementation from that
> > of the buffered I/O path.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig 
> > Reviewed-by: Brian Foster 
> 
> This change is now dependent on the preceeding direct IO API
> changes. Do I a) take the DIO API change through the XFS tree, or
> b) use the older version of the patch that didn't have this
> dependency and let somebody else deal with the API change and merge
> issues?
> 
> I'm happy to take the DIO API change through the XFS tree, if that's
> the fastest/easiest way to get the necessary DIO subsystem fixes
> into the mainline tree for XFS. As such, the for-next tree that I'm
> building right now will include the DIO API change patch

Right now this series is in a stable branch in the XFS tree:

git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/dgc/linux-xfs.git xfs-dio-fix-4.6

If you want to push it through some other tree, please let me know
when/where it is committed so I can rebuild the XFS for-next branch
appropriately from a stable commit/branch...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
da...@fromorbit.com

___
Ocfs2-devel mailing list
Ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com
https://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel