[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <E1KB7E3-0001Lf-K4@pomaz-ex.szeredi.hu>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 14:02:19 +0200
From: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To: johnpol@....mipt.ru
CC: miklos@...redi.hu, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [rfc patch 3/4] splice: remove confirm from pipe_buf_operations
> > > basically like PageWriteback(), but for read-in.
> >
> > OK it could be done, possibly at great pain. But why is it important?
>
> Maybe not that great if mark all readahead pages as, well, readahead,
> and do the same for readpage (essnetially it is the same).
It isn't that easy. Readahead (->readpages()) is best effort, and is
allowed to not bring the page uptodate, since it will be retried with
->readpage(). I don't know whether any filesystems actually do that,
but it's allowed nonetheless.
> > What's the use case where it matters that splice-in should not block
> > on the read?
>
> To be able to transfer what was already read?
That needs the consumer to be non-blocking...
Umm, one more reason why the ->confirm() stuff is currently busted:
pipe_read() will block on such a buffer even if pipe file is marked
O_NONBLOCK. Fixing that would take a hell of a lot of added
complexity in pipe_poll(), etc...
Miklos
--
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