From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2007 17:51:59 -0800 From: Mark Fasheh Subject: Re: page_mkwrite caller is racy? Message-ID: <20070130015159.GA14799@ca-server1.us.oracle.com> Reply-To: Mark Fasheh References: <45BDCA8A.4050809@yahoo.com.au> <45BE9BF0.10202@yahoo.com.au> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <45BE9BF0.10202@yahoo.com.au> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Nick Piggin Cc: Hugh Dickins , linux-kernel , Linux Memory Management , David Howells , Andrew Morton , Anton Altaparmakov List-ID: On Tue, Jan 30, 2007 at 12:14:24PM +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > This is another discussion, but do we want the page locked here? Or > are the filesystems happy to exclude truncate themselves? No page lock please. Generally, Ocfs2 wants to order cluster locks outside of page locks. Also, the sparse b-tree support I'm working on right now will need to be able to allocate in ->page_mkwrite() which would become very nasty if we came in with the page lock - aside from the additional cluster locks taken, ocfs2 will want to zero some adjacent pages (because we support atomic allocation up to 1 meg). Thanks, --Mark -- Mark Fasheh Senior Software Developer, Oracle mark.fasheh@oracle.com -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org