Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:17:10 -0400 | Subject | Re: statfs() / statvfs() syscall ballsup... | From | Trond Myklebust <> |
| |
>>>>> " " == Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org> writes:
> (As to the read-ahead issue: there's nothing saying that you > can't wait for the pages if they aren't up-to-date, and really > synchronize with read-ahead. But that will require filesystem > help, if only to be able to recognize that there is active IO > going on. So NFS would have to keep track of a "read list" the > same way it does for writeback pages).
Well... I was thinking more in terms of a rw_semaphore to lock out new calls to nfs_file_(read|write|sendfile) in combination with a call to invalidate_inode_pages2().
Such a mechanism can also be used in schemes to improve on the generic data/attribute cache consistency in order to reduce the number of bogus cache invalidations due to RPC ordering races. Those can tend to be expensive...
Note: Anybody using mmap() in combination with file locking will however continue to enjoy the privilege of being able to screw up...
Cheers, Trond - 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/
| |