On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 11:53 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > Not silly -- I guess that is the main sticking point. Luckily *most* > !uptodate pages will be ones that we have newly allocated so will > not be in pagecache yet. > > If it is in pagecache, we could do one of a number of things: either > remove it or try to bring it uptodate ourselves. I'm not yet sure if > either of these actions will cause other problems, though :P > > If both of those are really going to cause problems, then we could > solve this in a more brute force way (assuming that !uptodate, locked > pages, in pagecache at this point are very rare -- AFAIKS these will > only be caused by IO errors?). We could allocate another, temporary > page and copy the contents into there first, then into the target > page after the prepare_write. We are NOT going to mandate read-modify-write behaviour on prepare_write()/commit_write(). That would be a completely unnecessary slowdown for write-only workloads on NFS. Trond - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
