On Fri 21-12-12 12:12:46, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > 2. The current behavior is surprising -- the timestamp resulting from > > > > an mmaped write will be before the write, not after. This contradicts > > > > the mmap(2) manpage, which says: > > > > > > > > The st_ctime and st_mtime field for a file mapped with PROT_WRITE and > > > > MAP_SHARED will be updated after a write to the mapped region, and > > > > before a subsequent msync(2) with the MS_SYNC or MS_ASYNC flag, if one > > > > occurs. > > > > > > What you propose (time updates in do_writepages()) violates this. > > > msync(MS_ASYNC) doesn't actually start any IO, therefore the > > > timestamp wil not be updated. > > > > > > Besides, what POSIX actually says is: > > > > > > | The st_ctime and st_mtime fields of a file that is mapped with > > > | MAP_SHARED and PROT_WRITE shall be marked for update at some point > > > | in the interval between a write reference to the mapped region and > > > | the next call to msync() with MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC for that portion > > > | of the file by any process. > > > > > > Which means updating the timestamp during the first write is > > > perfectly acceptible. Indeed, by definition, we are compliant with > > > the man page because the update is after the write has occurred. > > > That is, the write triggered the page fault, so the page fault > > > processing where we update the timestamps is definitely after the > > > write occurred. :) > > Well, but there can be more writes to the already write faulted page. > > They can come seconds after we called ->page_mkwrite() and thus updated > > time stamps. So Andy is correct we violate the spec AFAICT. > > Depends how you read it. It can be updated at *any time* between the > write and the msync() call, which is exactly what happens right now. > The fact that second and subsequent writes between the first write > and the msync call do not change it is irrelevant, as the first one > is the one that matters... Indeed, if you read to the letter of the > posix definition, then updating timestamps in the msync call is also > incorrect, because that is not between the write and the msync() > call. > > What I'm saying is saying the current behaviour is wrong is > dependent on a specific intepretation of the standard, and the same > arguments can be made against this proposal. Hence such arguments > are not a convincing/compelling reason to change behaviours. I have to say I'm not following you :) If I have the program that does: fd = open("file", O_RDWR); addr = mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0); addr[0] = 'a'; sleep(1); addr[1] = 'b'; close(fd); Then application of the spec to the second write clearly states that time stamps should be updated sometime after the write of 'b'. I don't see any space for other interpretation there... And currently we update time stamps only at the moment we write 'a'. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR -- 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