![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 03:49:25PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:50:20AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote: > > Something like this (works OK for me)... > Yeah, that should work for now. But long-term we really need to redo > direct I/O locking to have a common scheme for all filesystems. I've heard > birds whistling RH patches yet another scheme into RHEL4 for GFS an it's > definitly already far too complex now. Yup, getting rid of the need for all these confusing locking modes was one of the objectives in mind for DIO simplification. (http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/suparna/DIO-simplify.txt) Once we have an efficient range locking or similar mechanism in place (Chris Mason is working on a patch), then it should be possible to push out all of the i_mutex locking to higher level routines, outside of direct-io.c. Longer term, it would be nice to be able to rethink and further simplify the whole _nolock equiv versions for VFS write methods. Especially the percolation down to sync_page_range_nolock, etc. Regards Suparna > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in > the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux AIO, > see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/ > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org">aart@kvack.org</a> -- Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@in.ibm.com) Linux Technology Center IBM Software Lab, India - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-03-14 04:48 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||