Trond Myklebust wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 12:56 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:Note that these pages should be *really* rare. Definitely even for normal filesystems I think RMW would use too much bandwidth if it were required for any significant number of writes.If file "foo" exists on the server, and contains data, then something like fd = open("foo", O_WRONLY); write(fd, "1", 1); should never need to trigger a read. That's a fairly common workload when you think about it (happens all the time in apps that do random write).
I have to admit that I've only been paying attention with one eye, but why doesn't this require a read? If "foo" is non-zero in size, then how does the client determine how much data in the buffer to write to the server? Isn't RMW required for any i/o which is either not buffer aligned or a multiple of the buffer size? Thanx... ps - 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/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- References:
- Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@oracle.com>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
- Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- From: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no>
- Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- Prev by Date: [patch] Add allowed_affinity to the irq_desc to make it possible to have restricted irqs
- Next by Date: Re: isochronous receives?
- Previous by thread: Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- Next by thread: Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
- Index(es):
![]() |