[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <457D6944.4010703@yahoo.com.au>
Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 01:20:52 +1100
From: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To: Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>
CC: Linux Memory Management <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@...l.parknet.co.jp>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: Status of buffered write path (deadlock fixes)
Nick Piggin wrote:
> Mark Fasheh wrote:
>> If we make the change I described above (looking for BH_New buffers
>> outside
>> the range passed), then zero length or partial shouldn't matter, but zero
>> length instead of partial would be nicer imho just for the sake of
>> reducing
>> the total number of cases down to the entire range or zero length.
>
>
> We don't want to do zero length, because we might make the theoretical
> livelock much easier to hit (eg. in the case of many small iovecs). But
> yes we can restrict ourselves to zero-length or full-length.
On second thoughts, I think I'm wrong about that.
Consider the last page of a file, which is uptodate. A full length
commit, which extends the file, will expose transient zeroes if the
usercopy fails.
--
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists