[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150108114950.GB3351@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2015 03:49:50 -0800
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Milosz Tanski <milosz@...in.com>
Subject: pread2/ pwrite2
On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 12:47:14AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > progress, which is a bit frustrating.
>
> I took a look at pread2() as well and I have two main issues:
>
> - The patchset includes a pwrite2() syscall which has nothing to do
> with nonblocking reads and which was poorly described and had little
> justification for inclusion.
It allows to do O_SYNC writes on a per-I/O basis. This is very useful
for file servers (smb, cifs) as well as storage target devices.
Note: that part was my addition, and the complaint about lacking
description ever made it to me. Can you point to the relevant
questions?
> - We've talked for years about implementing this via fincore+pread
> and at least two fincore implementations are floating about. Now
> along comes pread2() which does it all in one hit.
>
> Which approach is best? I expect fincore+pread is simpler, more
> flexible and more maintainable. But pread2() will have lower CPU
> consumption and lower average-case latency.
fincore+pread is inherently racy and thus entirely unsuitable for the
use case of a non-blockign main thread.
Nevermind that the pread2 path is way simpler than any of the proposed
fincore patches.
--
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