Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Sun, 28 Jul 2002 17:04:53 -0700 (PDT) | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | | Subject | Re: [patch 11/13] don't hold i_sem during O_DIRECT writes to blockdevs |
| |
On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, Andrew Morton wrote: > > We're moving in the direction of deprecating the raw driver and > recommending that applications use O_DIRECT reads and writes against > blockdevs.
This should probably be done unconditionally or not at all.
We've worked very hard on making block devices more "normal" in 2.5.x, and I don't want to start diverging again.
If this is really a scalability issue, I would suggest that people who care look into just getting rid of "i_sem", and replacing it with a read-write semaphore that explicitly protects only "i_size". Then you make reads and non-extending writes take that semaphore for reading, and extending writes and truncates taking it for writing.
[ The "nonextending writes" case is somewhat interesting, a write probably needs to actually take the semaphore for writing, and then downgrading it to reading after it has checked that it doesn't end up extending the file.
What makes this even more interesting is that depending on the semaphore implementation you can actually split up the "take write lock" into "prepare to take write lock" and "turn it into a read lock" or "confirm write lock", where the "prepare to take write lock" allows existing readers but not new write-lockers, so that if you downgrade to a read lock you never had to synchronize with anybody else who was already reading. ]
I'd much rather do this _right_ than have some ugly blockdev-only hack, since the problem certainly would happen with files too. A lot of people want to do databases on a filesystem, just because it is so much easier to administer.
Linus
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |