lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Dec]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: Are there u32 atomic bitops? (or dealing w/ i_flags)
On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 12:05:09PM -0800, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 11:03 PM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote:
>> start_this_handle jbd2__journal_start jbd2_journal_start
>> ext4_journal_start_sb ext4_dirty_inode __mark_inode_dirty update_time
>> file_update_time ext4_page_mkwrite do_wp_page handle_pte_fault
>> handle_mm_fault
>
> Yup, as I suspected. It's a filesystem specific problem.
>
>> This is a showstopper for my software -- I'm running on a kernel with
>> the call to file_update_time commented out.
>
> Which means you are effectively running with O_CMTIME on all mmapped
> files....

Indeed. I'm not thrilled by not having timestamps update, and IMO
adding O_CMTIME as part of the API seems like a silly way to "fix"
this. I'd rather fix the implementation.

The problems may be fs-specific in the sense that an fs could fix them
internally, but I think something like my AS_CMTIME approach could fix
it everywhere with much less complexity. Any thoughts on my patch
set? (Are you the right person to review it?)

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-12-21 01:01    [W:0.081 / U:0.324 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site