[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110901160436.GA13556@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 12:04:36 -0400
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Jeremy Allison <jra@...ba.org>
Cc: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@...adia.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Daniel Ehrenberg <dehrenberg@...gle.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-aio@...ck.org
Subject: Re: Approaches to making io_submit not block
On Thu, Sep 01, 2011 at 08:58:45AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote:
> Yes I did consider that of course. Problem is that leads you to the
> nightmare that is losing all fcntl locks on the file when any of the
> descriptors are closed. Of course we already have internal work arounds
> for that - but they're not scalable in this case. We'd have to dup on
> every read/write, and because of the fcntl lock problem we have to keep
> all fd's around until the final close of the file. Don't tell us to
> implement our own locking instead because (a) we already do in the case
> where we don't need locking consistency with NFS and (b) most vendors insist on
> locking consistency with NFS - not good if locks on one protocol aren't
> seen by another.
We could easily give you an fcntl / dup3 flag to only release posix
locks on the final close of a struct file if that helps you.
--
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