[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <6.0.0.20.2.20090206091511.0764d0a8@172.19.0.2>
Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 09:20:30 +0900
From: Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND] [PATCH] lseek: remove i_mutex
At 05:05 09/02/06, Andrew Morton wrote:
>On Tue, 03 Feb 2009 17:04:40 +0900
>Hisashi Hifumi <hifumi.hisashi@....ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
>> I removed i_mutex from generic_file_llseek.
>> I think that the reason of protecting lseek with i_mutex is just
>> touching i_size atomically.
>>
>> So I introduce i_size_read here so i_mutex is no longer needed.
>>
>> Following patch removes i_mutex from generic_file_llseek, and deletes
>> generic_file_llseek_nolock totally.
>>
>> Currently there is i_mutex contention not only around lseek, but also
>fsync or write.
>> So, I think we can mitigate i_mutex contention between fsync lseek and
>write by
>> removing i_mutex.
>
>Prior to this change, generic_file_llseek() modified file->f_pos
>atomically with respect to other i_mutex holders.
>
>After this change, it doesn't.
Hi Andrew.
Even before this change is applied, file->f_pos access is not atomic.
sys_read change f_pos value through file_pos_write without i_mutex.
I think seqlock is needed to make f_pos access atomic.
--
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