[lkml]   [2007]   [Jan]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: page_mkwrite caller is racy?
    On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Mark Fasheh wrote:
    > On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 12:14:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
    > > This is another discussion, but do we want the page locked here? Or
    > > are the filesystems happy to exclude truncate themselves?
    > No page lock please. Generally, Ocfs2 wants to order cluster locks outside
    > of page locks. Also, the sparse b-tree support I'm working on right now will
    > need to be able to allocate in ->page_mkwrite() which would become very
    > nasty if we came in with the page lock - aside from the additional cluster
    > locks taken, ocfs2 will want to zero some adjacent pages (because we support
    > atomic allocation up to 1 meg).

    Ditto for NTFS. I will need to lock pages on both sides of the page for
    large volume cluster sizes thus I will have to drop the page lock if it is
    already taken so it might as well not be... Although I do not feel
    strongly about it. If the page is locked I will just drop the lock and
    then take it again. If possible to not have the page locked that would
    make my code a little easier/more efficient I expect...

    Best regards,

    Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at> (replace at with @)
    Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK
    Linux NTFS maintainer,
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2007-01-30 16:03    [W:0.021 / U:65.936 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site