| To: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: split direct IO write path from xfs_file_aio_write |
| From: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:51:54 +1100 |
| Cc: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20101220112947.GC6881@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <1292376208-16282-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1292376208-16282-5-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101216120629.GC20445@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20101217073125.GE5193@dastard> <20101220112947.GC6881@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) |
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 06:29:47AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 06:31:25PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > Speaking of that, shouldn't xfs_file_aio_read also take the iolock > > > exclusive during the page invalidation and then demote it, just like > > > the write case? The above helpers would enforce that nicely. > > > > Probably, though it might be best to leave that to another cleanup > > series. I'll see how much perturbation of the read path it makes.... > > Yes, it should be a separate patch for sure. If you prefer another > series that's fine with me, too. Turns out to be pretty trivial to do - I included it in the new xfs_rw_ilock conversion patch for the moment. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: Question regarding xfs_repair / memory requirement., Dave Chinner |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs_efi_item slab leak, Dave Chinner |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 4/7] xfs: split direct IO write path from xfs_file_aio_write, Christoph Hellwig |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH 5/7] xfs: split buffered IO write path from xfs_file_aio_write, Dave Chinner |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |