Re: O_DIRECT as a hint, was: Re: [PATCH] ext4: refuse O_DIRECT opens for mode where DIO doesn't work

We have Orangefs users who have applications they
can't run because the applications open with
O_DIRECT. They are happy when I show them
how to "pretend" to support O_DIRECT - the
way they did it in NFS back in the 2.6 era...

I was thinking of adding it to the upstream version,
maybe as a mount option... so I like this "hint" idea...

-Mike

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 4:14 AM, Christoph Hellwig [off-list ref] wrote:

On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 09:49:46AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:

quoted

Why not just transparently fall back to buffered IO if direct IO
cannot be done? Saves people from wondering why applications fail
on one ext4 filesystem and not another....

I've been doing an audit of our direct I/O implementations, and most
of them does some form of transparent fallback, including some that
only pretend to support O_DIRECT, but do anything special for it at all,
while at the same time we go through greast efforts to check a file
system actualy supports direct I/O, leading to nasty no-op ->direct_IO
implementations as we even got that abstraction wrong.

At this point I wonder if we should simply treat O_DIRECT as a hint
and always allow it, and just let the file system optimize for it
(skip buffering, require alignment, relaxed Posix atomicy requirements)
if it is set.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html