On Thu 07-02-13 13:43:42, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 06-02-13 10:25:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > > c) i_mutex
On Thu 07-02-13 13:43:42, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 06-02-13 10:25:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
c) i_mutex doesn't allow
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 06-02-13 10:25:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > > c) i_mutex doesn't allow any paralellism of operations using it and
On Wed 06-02-13 10:25:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > > c) i_mutex doesn't allow any paralellism of operations using it and some
> > > >filesystems workaround this for specific cases
On Wed 06-02-13 10:25:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
c) i_mutex doesn't allow any paralellism of operations using it and some
filesystems workaround this for specific cases (e.g. DIO
On Wed, Feb 06, 2013 at 08:25:34PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 06-02-13 10:25:12, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
c) i_mutex doesn't allow any paralellism of operations using it and
some
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > c) i_mutex doesn't allow any paralellism of operations using it and some
> > >filesystems workaround this for specific cases (e.g. DIO reads). Using
> > >range locking allows
On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:38:31PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
c) i_mutex doesn't allow any paralellism of operations using it and some
filesystems workaround this for specific cases (e.g. DIO reads). Using
range locking allows for
On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:49:48 +0100
> Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > There are several different motivations for implementing mapping range
> > locking:
> >
> > a) Punch hole is currently racy wrt mmap (page can be faulted in in the
> >punched range
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:07:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
[snip]
> > c) i_mutex doesn't allow any paralellism of operations using it and some
> >filesystems workaround this for specific cases (e.g. DIO reads). Using
> >range locking allows for concurrent operations (e.g. writes, DIO)
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 04:07:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
[snip]
c) i_mutex doesn't allow any paralellism of operations using it and some
filesystems workaround this for specific cases (e.g. DIO reads). Using
range locking allows for concurrent operations (e.g. writes, DIO) on
On Thu 31-01-13 16:07:57, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:49:48 +0100
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
There are several different motivations for implementing mapping range
locking:
a) Punch hole is currently racy wrt mmap (page can be faulted in in the
punched range
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:49:48 +0100
Jan Kara wrote:
> There are several different motivations for implementing mapping range
> locking:
>
> a) Punch hole is currently racy wrt mmap (page can be faulted in in the
>punched range after page cache has been invalidated) leading to nasty
>
Hello,
As I promised in my LSF/MM summit proposal here are initial patches
implementing mapping range lock. There's ext3 converted to fully use the
range locks, converting other filesystems shouldn't be difficult but I want
to spend time on it only after we are sure what we want. The
Hello,
As I promised in my LSF/MM summit proposal here are initial patches
implementing mapping range lock. There's ext3 converted to fully use the
range locks, converting other filesystems shouldn't be difficult but I want
to spend time on it only after we are sure what we want. The
On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:49:48 +0100
Jan Kara j...@suse.cz wrote:
There are several different motivations for implementing mapping range
locking:
a) Punch hole is currently racy wrt mmap (page can be faulted in in the
punched range after page cache has been invalidated) leading to nasty
16 matches
Mail list logo