Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-07 Thread Jan Kara
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-07 Thread Jan Kara
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-06 Thread Dave Chinner
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-06 Thread Jan Kara
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-06 Thread Jan Kara
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-06 Thread Dave Chinner
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-05 Thread Dave Chinner
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-05 Thread Dave Chinner
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-04 Thread Jan Kara
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-04 Thread Zheng Liu
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)

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-04 Thread Zheng Liu
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-02-04 Thread Jan Kara
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-01-31 Thread Andrew Morton
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 >

[PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-01-31 Thread Jan Kara
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

[PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-01-31 Thread Jan Kara
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

Re: [PATCH 0/6 RFC] Mapping range lock

2013-01-31 Thread Andrew Morton
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