Re: [Bug 50981] generic_file_aio_read ?: No locking means DATA CORRUPTION read and write on same 4096 page range

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Nov 26, 2012 at 04:49:37PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Christoph, can you give some kind of estimate for the overhead that
> adding this locking in XFS actually costs in practice?

I don't know any real life measurements, but in terms of implementation
the over head is:

 a) taking a the rw_semaphore in shared mode for every buffered read
 b) taking the slightly slower exclusive rw_semaphore for buffered writes
    instead of the plain mutex

On the other hand it significantly simplifies the locking for direct
I/O and allows parallel direct I/O writers.

> And does XFS
> provide any kind of consistency guarantees if the reads/write overlap
> spans multiple pages?  I assume the answer to that is no, correct?

The answer is yes as the lock is taken globally on the inode.

--
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


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux