From: Russ Fellows <russ.fellows@gmail.com>
To: miklos@szeredi.hu, fuse-devel@lists.linux.dev,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>,
Russ Fellows <russ.fellows@gmail.com>
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/2] fuse: preserve FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES for passthrough opens
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2026 23:13:21 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20260616231325.16788-2-russ.fellows@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20260616231325.16788-1-russ.fellows@gmail.com>
fuse_file_io_open() clears FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES for any open
that lacks FOPEN_DIRECT_IO. That rule is too strict for passthrough
opens, which already bypass the page cache through the backing file
and do not need FOPEN_DIRECT_IO to guarantee direct-I/O semantics.
Clearing the flag before the passthrough write path sees it prevents
the kernel from ever taking the shared-lock path for passthrough writes.
Introduce FOPEN_IOMODE helper macros to classify the effective I/O mode
of an open file:
FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_CACHED(oflags) - page-cache I/O (neither flag)
FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_DIRECT(oflags) - DIRECT_IO is set
FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_PASSTHROUGH(oflags) - PASSTHROUGH only (no DIRECT_IO)
Use FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_CACHED to express the PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES guard
cleanly: the flag is only suppressed for cached iomode, not for passthrough
or direct-IO mode.
This is a prerequisite for passthrough write parallelism; without it the
shared-lock path in the subsequent patch never activates.
Signed-off-by: Russ Fellows <russ.fellows@gmail.com>
---
fs/fuse/iomode.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fuse/iomode.c b/fs/fuse/iomode.c
index c99e285f3..46e60b04c 100644
--- a/fs/fuse/iomode.c
+++ b/fs/fuse/iomode.c
@@ -165,6 +165,23 @@ static void fuse_file_uncached_io_release(struct fuse_file *ff,
(FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH | FOPEN_DIRECT_IO | FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES | \
FOPEN_NOFLUSH)
+/*
+ * Helpers to classify the effective I/O mode of an open file.
+ *
+ * FOPEN_IOMODE() - extract the mode-relevant bits
+ * FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_CACHED - neither DIRECT_IO nor PASSTHROUGH: page-cache I/O
+ * FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_DIRECT - DIRECT_IO is set (may also have PASSTHROUGH)
+ * FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_PASSTHROUGH - PASSTHROUGH only, without DIRECT_IO
+ */
+#define FOPEN_IOMODE(oflags) \
+ ((oflags) & (FOPEN_DIRECT_IO | FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH))
+#define FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_CACHED(oflags) \
+ (FOPEN_IOMODE(oflags) == 0)
+#define FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_DIRECT(oflags) \
+ (FOPEN_IOMODE(oflags) & FOPEN_DIRECT_IO)
+#define FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_PASSTHROUGH(oflags) \
+ (FOPEN_IOMODE(oflags) == FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH)
+
static int fuse_file_passthrough_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
struct fuse_file *ff = file->private_data;
@@ -216,9 +233,11 @@ int fuse_file_io_open(struct file *file, struct inode *inode)
goto fail;
/*
- * FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES requires FOPEN_DIRECT_IO.
+ * FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES is not supported with cached iomode.
+ * Passthrough and direct-IO both bypass the page cache, so both are
+ * eligible to enable parallel direct writes.
*/
- if (!(ff->open_flags & FOPEN_DIRECT_IO))
+ if (FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_CACHED(ff->open_flags))
ff->open_flags &= ~FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES;
/*
@@ -228,8 +247,13 @@ int fuse_file_io_open(struct file *file, struct inode *inode)
* Note that if user opens a file open with O_DIRECT, but server did
* not specify FOPEN_DIRECT_IO, a later fcntl() could remove O_DIRECT,
* so we put the inode in caching mode to prevent parallel dio.
+ *
+ * Pure direct-IO (DIRECT_IO without PASSTHROUGH) needs no page-cache
+ * iomode machinery — return early. When DIRECT_IO and PASSTHROUGH are
+ * both set, write_iter uses the direct-IO path but the backing file
+ * still needs to be opened below.
*/
- if ((ff->open_flags & FOPEN_DIRECT_IO) &&
+ if (FOPEN_IOMODE_IS_DIRECT(ff->open_flags) &&
!(ff->open_flags & FOPEN_PASSTHROUGH))
return 0;
--
2.51.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-06-16 23:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-06-16 23:13 [PATCH v3 0/2] fuse: fix passthrough parallel direct writes Russ Fellows
2026-06-16 23:13 ` Russ Fellows [this message]
2026-06-19 8:12 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] fuse: preserve FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES for passthrough opens Amir Goldstein
2026-06-16 23:13 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] fuse: allow parallel direct writes in passthrough write_iter Russ Fellows
2026-06-19 9:05 ` Amir Goldstein
2026-07-26 1:59 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] fuse: allow parallel direct writes for passthrough Russ Fellows
2026-07-26 1:59 ` [PATCH v4 1/2] fuse: preserve FOPEN_PARALLEL_DIRECT_WRITES for passthrough opens Russ Fellows
2026-07-26 1:59 ` [PATCH v4 2/2] fuse: allow parallel direct writes in passthrough write_iter Russ Fellows
2026-08-01 19:41 ` [PATCH v4 0/2] fuse: allow parallel direct writes for passthrough Amir Goldstein
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=20260616231325.16788-2-russ.fellows@gmail.com \
--to=russ.fellows@gmail.com \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=fuse-devel@lists.linux.dev \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®