On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 11:53 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Not silly -- I guess that is the main sticking point. Luckily *most*
> !uptodate pages will be ones that we have newly allocated so will
> not be in pagecache yet.
>
> If it is in pagecache, we could do one of a number of things: either
> remove it or try to bring it uptodate ourselves. I'm not yet sure if
> either of these actions will cause other problems, though :P
>
> If both of those are really going to cause problems, then we could
> solve this in a more brute force way (assuming that !uptodate, locked
> pages, in pagecache at this point are very rare -- AFAIKS these will
> only be caused by IO errors?). We could allocate another, temporary
> page and copy the contents into there first, then into the target
> page after the prepare_write.
We are NOT going to mandate read-modify-write behaviour on
prepare_write()/commit_write(). That would be a completely unnecessary
slowdown for write-only workloads on NFS.
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
