Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:05:55 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:05:55 -0500 Received: from comtv.ru ([217.10.32.4]:60640 "EHLO comtv.ru") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 24 Jan 2003 07:05:54 -0500 X-Comment-To: Andrew Morton To: Andrew Morton Cc: Alex Tomas , linux-kernel@alex.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: 2.5.59-mm5 References: <20030123195044.47c51d39.akpm@digeo.com> <946253340.1043406208@[192.168.100.5]> <20030124031632.7e28055f.akpm@digeo.com> <20030124035017.6276002f.akpm@digeo.com> From: Alex Tomas Organization: HOME Date: 24 Jan 2003 15:05:00 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20030124035017.6276002f.akpm@digeo.com> Message-ID: Lines: 23 User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >>>>> Andrew Morton (AM) writes: AM> That's correct. Reads are usually synchronous and writes are AM> rarely synchronous. AM> The most common place where the kernel forces a user process to AM> wait on completion of a write is actually in unlink (truncate, AM> really). Because truncate must wait for in-progress I/O to AM> complete before allowing the filesystem to free (and potentially AM> reuse) the affected blocks. looks like I miss something here. why do wait for write completion in truncate? getblk (blockmap); getblk (bitmap); set 0 in blockmap->b_data[N]; mark_buffer_dirty (blockmap); clear_bit (N, &bitmap); mark_buffer_dirty (bitmap); isn't that enough? - 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/