Messages in this thread |  | | Subject | Re: Q: generic_file_write sets PG_locked??? | | From | (Eric W. Biederman) | | Date | 24 Apr 1999 15:25:13 -0500 |
| |
>>>>> "TM" == Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no> writes:
EB> And this still leaves it as an open question why keep the page EB> locked around the call to updatepage. The only real function EB> I can see is for a data coherency lock. . .
TM> We want to serialize the case of write + write too. As I said earlier TM> in this thread, you cannot assume that either of 2 different processes TM> really have write permission even if the attributes seem to indicate TM> that they do. Ugly: but that's what a stateless protocol means...
Agreed. This is quite useful for NFS, (The caching policy in a stateless protocol is a tradeoff discrepency/performance tradeoff).
My focus 2.3 when hopefully all filesystems will be keeping their dirty data in the page cache, and I don't want to pay the price for other filesystems.
And as I have said because NFS doesn't wrap the mmap functions, write + write isn't handled in the mmap case.
Eric
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |