David Chinner wrote:
Only if we leave the page in the page cache. If we toss the page,
the time it takes to do the I/O for the page fault is enough for
the direct I/o to complete. Sure it's not an absolute guarantee,
but if you want an absolute guarantee:
So I guess you *could* relax it in the
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 03:25:29PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:01:09PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >>David Chinner wrote:
>
> >>>No. The only thing that will happen here is that the direct read
> >>>will see _none_ of the write because the mma
David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:01:09PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
David Chinner wrote:
No. The only thing that will happen here is that the direct read
will see _none_ of the write because the mmap write occurred during
the DIO read to a different set of pages in memory. Ther
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 01:01:09PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:47:24AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >
> >>David Chinner wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:12:41AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> >>But I'm just interested about DIO reads. I thin
David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:47:24AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:12:41AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
... so surely if you do a direct read followed by a buffered read,
you should *not* get the same data if there has been some a
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:47:24AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:12:41AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> >>... so surely if you do a direct read followed by a buffered read,
> >>you should *not* get the same data if there has been some activity
> >>to
David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:12:41AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
... so surely if you do a direct read followed by a buffered read,
you should *not* get the same data if there has been some activity
to modify that part of the file in the meantime (whether that be a
buffered or
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:12:41AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:43:23AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
> >>And why not just leave it in the pagecache and be done with it?
> >
> >
> >because what is in cache is then not coherent with what is on disk,
>
David Chinner wrote:
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:43:23AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
And why not just leave it in the pagecache and be done with it?
because what is in cache is then not coherent with what is on disk,
and a direct read is supposed to read the data that is present
in the file at
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 00:43 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
Have you seen the new launder_page() a_op? called from
invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
It would have been nice to make that one into a more potentially
useful generic callback.
That can still be done when the need
On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 12:43:23AM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:37 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> >
> >>With the recent changes to cancel_dirty_pages(), XFS will
> >>dump warnings in the syslog because it can truncate_inode_pages()
> >>on dirty mapped
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 01:13:55PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:37 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> > With the recent changes to cancel_dirty_pages(), XFS will
> > dump warnings in the syslog because it can truncate_inode_pages()
> > on dirty mapped pages.
> >
> > I've dete
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 00:43 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Have you seen the new launder_page() a_op? called from
> > invalidate_inode_pages2_range()
>
> It would have been nice to make that one into a more potentially
> useful generic callback.
That can still be done when the need arises, right?
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:37 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
With the recent changes to cancel_dirty_pages(), XFS will
dump warnings in the syslog because it can truncate_inode_pages()
on dirty mapped pages.
I've determined that this is indeed correct behaviour for XFS
as this
On Wed, 2007-01-24 at 09:37 +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> With the recent changes to cancel_dirty_pages(), XFS will
> dump warnings in the syslog because it can truncate_inode_pages()
> on dirty mapped pages.
>
> I've determined that this is indeed correct behaviour for XFS
> as this can happen in
15 matches
Mail list logo
