[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5637437C.4070306@electrozaur.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2015 13:05:32 +0200
From: Boaz Harrosh <ooo@...ctrozaur.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org, osd-dev@...n-osd.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] osd fs: __r4w_get_page rely on PageUptodate for uptodate
On 11/02/2015 01:39 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
<>
>> This patch is not correct!
>
> I think you have actually confirmed that the patch is correct:
> why bother to test PageDirty or PageWriteback when PageUptodate
> already tells you what you need?
>
> Or do these filesystems do something unusual with PageUptodate
> when PageDirty is set? I didn't find it.
>
This is kind of delicate stuff. It took me a while to get it right
when I did it. I don't remember all the details.
But consider this option:
exofs_write_begin on a full PAGE_CACHE_SIZE, the page is instantiated
new in page-cache is that PageUptodate(page) then? I thought not.
(exofs does not set that)
Now that page I do not want to read in. The latest data is in memory.
(Same when this page is in writeback, dirty-bit is cleared)
So for sure if page is dirty or writeback then we surly do not need a read.
only if not then we need to consider the PageUptodate(page) state.
Do you think the code is actually wrong as is?
BTW: Very similar code is in fs/nfs/objlayout/objio_osd.c::__r4w_get_page
> Thanks,
> Hugh
>
<>
Thanks
Boaz
--
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