[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101119150641.GA5302@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 10:06:41 -0500
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@...gle.com>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Kosaki Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>,
Suleiman Souhlal <suleiman@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mlock: avoid dirtying pages and triggering writeback
On Fri, Nov 19, 2010 at 08:42:05AM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
> My vote would be against. ? If you if you mmap a sparse file and then
> try writing to it willy-nilly, bad things will happen. ?This is true without
> a mlock(). ? Where is it written that mlock() has anything to do with
> improving this situation?
Exactly. Allocating space has been a side-effect on a handfull
filesystem for about 20 kernel releases.
> If userspace wants to call fallocate() before it calls mlock(), it should
> do that. ?And in fact, in most cases, userspace should probably be
> encouraged to do that. ? But having mlock() call fallocate() and
> then return ENOSPC if there's no room? Isn't it confusing that mlock()
> call ENOSPC? Doesn't that give you cognitive dissonance? It should
> because fundamentally mlock() has nothing to do with block allocation!!
> Read the API spec!
Indeed. There is no need to make mlock + flag a parallel-API to
fallocate.
--
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