[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <458004D6.7050406@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 08:49:10 -0500
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@...hat.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>
CC: Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Mark Fasheh <mark.fasheh@...cle.com>,
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)
Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 12:56 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote:
>
>> Note that these pages should be *really* rare. Definitely even for normal
>> filesystems I think RMW would use too much bandwidth if it were required
>> for any significant number of writes.
>>
>
> If file "foo" exists on the server, and contains data, then something
> like
>
> fd = open("foo", O_WRONLY);
> write(fd, "1", 1);
>
> should never need to trigger a read. That's a fairly common workload
> when you think about it (happens all the time in apps that do random
> write).
I have to admit that I've only been paying attention with one eye, but
why doesn't this require a read? If "foo" is non-zero in size, then
how does the client determine how much data in the buffer to write to
the server?
Isn't RMW required for any i/o which is either not buffer aligned or
a multiple of the buffer size?
Thanx...
ps
-
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