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 d

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 (e.

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 aft

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) o

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 >resul