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 05:09:08PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 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.

I should probably just look at the XFS code, but.... if you're taking
an exclusve lock for buffered writes, won't this impact the
performance of buffered writes happening in parallel on different
CPU's?

						- Ted
--
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