[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subjectext2 retry code (Was: Re: [patch] preemptive kernel, preemptive-2.3.52-A7)

I made a small calculation of the time required to make a user-kernel
and the amount of data have to be huge to give an impact - unless you
up with a page fault, what will happen then? (Something sensible I
like rescheduling during IO, but while reading code I found this)

from ext2/file.c(280..307) linux-2.2.13
interesting lines marked (a)..(d)

/* Tricky: what happens if we are writing the complete
* contents of a block which is not currently
* initialised? We have to obey the same
* synchronisation rules as the IO code, to prevent some
* other process from stomping on the buffer contents by
* refreshing them from disk while we are setting up the
* buffer. The copy_from_user() can page fault, after
* all. We also have to throw away partially successful
* copy_from_users to such buffers, since we can't trust
* the rest of the buffer_head in that case. --sct */

(a) new_buffer = (!buffer_uptodate(bh) && !buffer_locked(bh) &&
c == sb->s_blocksize);

(b) if (new_buffer) {
set_bit(BH_Lock, &bh->b_state);
(c) c -= copy_from_user (bh->b_data + offset, buf, c);
(d) if (c != sb->s_blocksize) {
c = 0;
if (!written)
written = -EFAULT;
mark_buffer_uptodate(bh, 1);
} else {

(a) Only buffers with "c == sb->s_blocksize" can be new_buffers
(b) Test for new buffers
(c.1) copy_from_user(..., c) will return c won't it???
(c.2) c -= c gives c = 0
(d) if (c != sb->s_blocksize) ALWAYS true
and the buffer gets thrown away...
(d') should not the test be "if (c != 0) then" to catch partial copies

/RogerL wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 25, 2000 at 10:38:35PM -0800, David S. Miller wrote:
> > Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 23:24:59 -0700
> > From:
> >
> > The hidden assumption of the pre-emption patch is that there are kernel
> > paths that take more than 500us to reach a schedule or return to user
> > mode. Obviously there are such paths, but what are they and why can't they
> > be fixed?
> >
> > Just to name a few obvious ones:
> >
> > 1) write(fd, buffer, SOME_LARGE_VALUE);
> > 2) read(fd, buffer, SOME_LARGE_VALUE);
> >
> > I honestly can't think of a way in which we'd want to deal with these
> > cases, except to perhaps check need_resched after or before copying
> We have a non-scaling, I/O system where we copy huge
> chunks of data for no reason
> Problem: on large reads/writes, the kernel can spend milliseconds copying
> data into kernel buffers:
> Loss of responsiveness
> Loss of throughput for useful work
> Blow cache.
> Waste memory.
> - - -

Home page:

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:57    [W:0.281 / U:0.244 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site