From: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2024 19:19:34 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240428181934.GV2118490@ZenIV> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240427234623.GS2118490@ZenIV>
On Sun, Apr 28, 2024 at 12:46:23AM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 02:40:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sat, 27 Apr 2024 at 14:11, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > ... eliminating the need to reopen block devices so they could be
> > > exclusively held.
> >
> > This looks like a good change, but it raises the question of why we
> > did it this odd way to begin with?
> >
> > Is it just because O_EXCL without O_CREAT is kind of odd, and only has
> > meaning for block devices?
> >
> > Or is it just that before we used fiel pointers for block devices, the
> > old model made more sense?
> >
> > Anyway, I like it, it just makes me go "why didn't we do it that way
> > originally?"
>
> Exclusion for swap partitions:
>
> commit 75e9c9e1bffbe4a1767172855296b94ccba28f71
> Author: Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu>
> Date: Mon Mar 4 22:56:47 2002 -0800
>
> [PATCH] death of is_mounted() and aother fixes
>
>
> O_EXCL for block devices:
>
> commit c366082d9ed0a0d3c46441d1b3fdf895d8e55ca9
> Author: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
> Date: Wed Aug 20 10:26:57 2003 -0700
>
> [PATCH] Allow O_EXCL on a block device to claim exclusive use.
>
> IOW, O_EXCL hadn't been available at the time - it had been implemented
> on top of bd_claim()/bd_release() introduced in the same earlier commit.
>
> Switching swap exclusion to O_EXCL could've been done back in 2003 or
> at any later point; it's just that swapon(2)/swapoff(2) is something that
> rarely gets a look...
FWIW, pretty much the same can be done with zram - open with O_EXCL and to
hell with reopening. Guys, are there any objections to that?
Signed-off-by: Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>
---
diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
index f0639df6cd18..d882a0c7b522 100644
--- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
+++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.c
@@ -426,11 +426,10 @@ static void reset_bdev(struct zram *zram)
if (!zram->backing_dev)
return;
- fput(zram->bdev_file);
/* hope filp_close flush all of IO */
filp_close(zram->backing_dev, NULL);
zram->backing_dev = NULL;
- zram->bdev_file = NULL;
+ zram->bdev = NULL;
zram->disk->fops = &zram_devops;
kvfree(zram->bitmap);
zram->bitmap = NULL;
@@ -473,10 +472,8 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
size_t sz;
struct file *backing_dev = NULL;
struct inode *inode;
- struct address_space *mapping;
unsigned int bitmap_sz;
unsigned long nr_pages, *bitmap = NULL;
- struct file *bdev_file = NULL;
int err;
struct zram *zram = dev_to_zram(dev);
@@ -497,15 +494,14 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
if (sz > 0 && file_name[sz - 1] == '\n')
file_name[sz - 1] = 0x00;
- backing_dev = filp_open(file_name, O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE, 0);
+ backing_dev = filp_open(file_name, O_RDWR|O_LARGEFILE|O_EXCL, 0);
if (IS_ERR(backing_dev)) {
err = PTR_ERR(backing_dev);
backing_dev = NULL;
goto out;
}
- mapping = backing_dev->f_mapping;
- inode = mapping->host;
+ inode = backing_dev->f_mapping->host;
/* Support only block device in this moment */
if (!S_ISBLK(inode->i_mode)) {
@@ -513,14 +509,6 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
goto out;
}
- bdev_file = bdev_file_open_by_dev(inode->i_rdev,
- BLK_OPEN_READ | BLK_OPEN_WRITE, zram, NULL);
- if (IS_ERR(bdev_file)) {
- err = PTR_ERR(bdev_file);
- bdev_file = NULL;
- goto out;
- }
-
nr_pages = i_size_read(inode) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
bitmap_sz = BITS_TO_LONGS(nr_pages) * sizeof(long);
bitmap = kvzalloc(bitmap_sz, GFP_KERNEL);
@@ -531,7 +519,7 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
reset_bdev(zram);
- zram->bdev_file = bdev_file;
+ zram->bdev = I_BDEV(inode);
zram->backing_dev = backing_dev;
zram->bitmap = bitmap;
zram->nr_pages = nr_pages;
@@ -544,9 +532,6 @@ static ssize_t backing_dev_store(struct device *dev,
out:
kvfree(bitmap);
- if (bdev_file)
- fput(bdev_file);
-
if (backing_dev)
filp_close(backing_dev, NULL);
@@ -587,7 +572,7 @@ static void read_from_bdev_async(struct zram *zram, struct page *page,
{
struct bio *bio;
- bio = bio_alloc(file_bdev(zram->bdev_file), 1, parent->bi_opf, GFP_NOIO);
+ bio = bio_alloc(zram->bdev, 1, parent->bi_opf, GFP_NOIO);
bio->bi_iter.bi_sector = entry * (PAGE_SIZE >> 9);
__bio_add_page(bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
bio_chain(bio, parent);
@@ -703,7 +688,7 @@ static ssize_t writeback_store(struct device *dev,
continue;
}
- bio_init(&bio, file_bdev(zram->bdev_file), &bio_vec, 1,
+ bio_init(&bio, zram->bdev, &bio_vec, 1,
REQ_OP_WRITE | REQ_SYNC);
bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = blk_idx * (PAGE_SIZE >> 9);
__bio_add_page(&bio, page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
@@ -785,7 +770,7 @@ static void zram_sync_read(struct work_struct *work)
struct bio_vec bv;
struct bio bio;
- bio_init(&bio, file_bdev(zw->zram->bdev_file), &bv, 1, REQ_OP_READ);
+ bio_init(&bio, zw->zram->bdev, &bv, 1, REQ_OP_READ);
bio.bi_iter.bi_sector = zw->entry * (PAGE_SIZE >> 9);
__bio_add_page(&bio, zw->page, PAGE_SIZE, 0);
zw->error = submit_bio_wait(&bio);
diff --git a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
index 37bf29f34d26..35e322144629 100644
--- a/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
+++ b/drivers/block/zram/zram_drv.h
@@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ struct zram {
spinlock_t wb_limit_lock;
bool wb_limit_enable;
u64 bd_wb_limit;
- struct file *bdev_file;
+ struct block_device *bdev;
unsigned long *bitmap;
unsigned long nr_pages;
#endif
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-04-28 18:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 51+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-04-27 21:09 [PATCHES][RFC] set_blocksize() rework Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 1/7] bcache_register(): don't bother with set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:37 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 2/7] pktcdvd: sort set_blocksize() calls out Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:38 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:10 ` [PATCH 3/7] swapon(2)/swapoff(2): don't bother with block size Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:08 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:38 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:11 ` [PATCH 4/7] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:40 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-04-27 23:46 ` Al Viro
2024-04-28 1:25 ` Al Viro
2024-04-28 18:19 ` Al Viro [this message]
2024-04-28 18:46 ` Linus Torvalds
2024-04-28 19:07 ` Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 5:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:39 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:11 ` [PATCH 5/7] swsusp: don't bother with setting block size Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:10 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:40 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-27 21:12 ` [PATCH 6/7] btrfs_get_dev_args_from_path(): don't call set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:11 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:40 ` Christian Brauner
2024-04-29 15:11 ` David Sterba
2024-04-30 2:05 ` Al Viro
2024-04-27 21:13 ` [PATCH 7/7] set_blocksize(): switch to passing struct file *, fail if it's not opened exclusive Al Viro
2024-04-29 5:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-04-29 8:42 ` Christian Brauner
2024-05-03 3:18 ` [PATCHES v2][RFC] set_blocksize() rework Al Viro
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] bcache_register(): don't bother with set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] pktcdvd: sort set_blocksize() calls out Al Viro
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] swapon(2)/swapoff(2): don't bother with block size Al Viro
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL Al Viro
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] zram: don't bother with reopening - just use O_EXCL for open Al Viro
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] swsusp: don't bother with setting block size Al Viro
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb(): call set_blocksize() only for exclusive opens Al Viro
2024-05-10 13:41 ` David Sterba
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] set_blocksize(): switch to passing struct file * Al Viro
2024-05-03 3:23 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] make set_blocksize() fail unless block device is opened exclusive Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 1/9] bcache_register(): don't bother with set_blocksize() Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 2/9] pktcdvd: sort set_blocksize() calls out Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 3/9] swapon(2)/swapoff(2): don't bother with block size Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 4/9] swapon(2): open swap with O_EXCL Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 5/9] zram: don't bother with reopening - just use O_EXCL for open Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 6/9] swsusp: don't bother with setting block size Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 7/9] btrfs_get_bdev_and_sb(): call set_blocksize() only for exclusive opens Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 8/9] set_blocksize(): switch to passing struct file * Al Viro
2024-05-03 4:17 ` [PATCH v2 9/9] make set_blocksize() fail unless block device is opened exclusive Al Viro
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240428181934.GV2118490@ZenIV \
--to=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=brauner@kernel.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael@kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.