Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 31 Jan 2007 12:18:53 +1100 | From | Nick Piggin <> | Subject | Re: page_mkwrite caller is racy? |
| |
Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > On Mon, 29 Jan 2007, Mark Fasheh wrote: > >> >>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...
OK, that makes sense. Thanks to you both.
-- SUSE Labs, Novell Inc. Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
- 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/
| |