From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: 2.5.59-mm5 References: <20030123195044.47c51d39.akpm@digeo.com> <946253340.1043406208@[192.168.100.5]> <20030124031632.7e28055f.akpm@digeo.com> <20030124035017.6276002f.akpm@digeo.com> From: Alex Tomas Date: 24 Jan 2003 15:05:00 +0300 In-Reply-To: <20030124035017.6276002f.akpm@digeo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: Alex Tomas , linux-kernel@alex.org.uk, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: >>>>> Andrew Morton (AM) writes: AM> That's correct. Reads are usually synchronous and writes are AM> rarely synchronous. AM> The most common place where the kernel forces a user process to AM> wait on completion of a write is actually in unlink (truncate, AM> really). Because truncate must wait for in-progress I/O to AM> complete before allowing the filesystem to free (and potentially AM> reuse) the affected blocks. looks like I miss something here. why do wait for write completion in truncate? getblk (blockmap); getblk (bitmap); set 0 in blockmap->b_data[N]; mark_buffer_dirty (blockmap); clear_bit (N, &bitmap); mark_buffer_dirty (bitmap); isn't that enough? -- 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/