[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:0.070 / U:4.580 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site