[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070210013407.GB14349@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2007 02:34:07 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux Filesystems <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] ext2: use perform_write aop
On Fri, Feb 09, 2007 at 11:45:39AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Feb 2007 11:14:55 -0800 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> > If so, that might be preventable by leaving the buffer nonuptodate.
>
> oh, OK, it was buffer_new(), so zeroes are the right thing for a reader to
> see.
>
> But if it wasn't buffer_new() then the appropriate thing for the reader to
> see is what's on the disk. But __block_prepare_write() won't read a buffer
> which is fully-inside the write area from disk.
>
> And that's seemingly OK, because if a reader gets in there after the short
> copy, that reader will see the non-uptodate buffer and will populate it
> from disk.
>
> But doing that will overwrite the data which the write() caller managed to
> copy into the page before it took a fault. And that's not OK because
> block_perform_write() does iovec_iterator_advance(i, copied) in this case
> and hence will not rerun the copy after acquiring the page lock?
Hmm, yeah. This can be handled by not advancing partially into a !uptodate
buffer.
-
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