On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 03:49:25PM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 10, 2006 at 11:50:20AM +1100, Nathan Scott wrote:
> > Something like this (works OK for me)...
> Yeah, that should work for now. But long-term we really need to redo
> direct I/O locking to have a common scheme for all filesystems. I've heard
> birds whistling RH patches yet another scheme into RHEL4 for GFS an it's
> definitly already far too complex now.
Yup, getting rid of the need for all these confusing locking
modes was one of the objectives in mind for DIO simplification.
Once we have an efficient range locking or similar mechanism in place
(Chris Mason is working on a patch), then it should be possible to push
out all of the i_mutex locking to higher level routines, outside of
Longer term, it would be nice to be able to rethink and further simplify
the whole _nolock equiv versions for VFS write methods. Especially the
percolation down to sync_page_range_nolock, etc.
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-aio' in
> the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux AIO,
> see: http://www.kvack.org/aio/
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@xxxxxxxxx">aart@xxxxxxxxx</a>
Suparna Bhattacharya (suparna@xxxxxxxxxx)
Linux Technology Center
IBM Software Lab, India