Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1946321AbXBIKdA (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:33:00 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1946347AbXBIKdA (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:33:00 -0500 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35078 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946321AbXBIKc7 (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Feb 2007 05:32:59 -0500 Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:32:58 +0100 From: Nick Piggin To: Andrew Morton Cc: Linux Filesystems , Linux Kernel , Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [rfc][patch 0/3] a faster buffered write deadlock fix? Message-ID: <20070209103258.GC14398@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070208105437.26443.35653.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20070209004101.3e4a88fc.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070209095405.GA14398@wotan.suse.de> <20070209020954.4951256e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070209020954.4951256e.akpm@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1816 Lines: 46 On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 02:09:54AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 10:54:05 +0100 Nick Piggin wrote: > > > > > That's still got a deadlock, > > It does? Yes, PG_lock vs mm->mmap_sem. > > and also it doesn't work if we want to lock > > the page when performing a minor fault (which I want to fix fault vs > > invalidate), > > It's hard to discuss this without a description of what you want to fix > there, and a description of how you plan to fix it. http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-mm&m=116865911432667&w=2 > > and also assumes nobody's ->nopage locks the page or > > requires any resources that are held by prepare_write (something not > > immediately clear to me with the cluster filesystems, at least). > > The nopage handler is filemap_nopage(). Are there any exceptions to that? OCFS2 and GFS2. > > But that all becomes legacy path, so do we really care? Supposing fs > > maintainers like perform_write, then after the main ones have implementations > > we could switch over to the slow-but-correct prepare_write legacy path. > > Or we could leave it, or we could use Linus's slightly-less-buggy scheme... > > by that point I expect I'd be sick of arguing about it ;) > > It's worth "arguing" about. This is write(). What matters more?? That's the legacy path that uses prepare/commit (ie. supposing that all major filesystems did get converted to perform_write). Of course I would still want my correct-but-slow version in that case, but I just wouldn't care to argue if you still wanted to keep it fast. - 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/