Re: [Lsf] Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF
From: Matthew Wilcox <hidden>
Date: 2011-03-31 00:05:12
Also in:
dm-devel, linux-fsdevel
From: Matthew Wilcox <hidden>
Date: 2011-03-31 00:05:12
Also in:
dm-devel, linux-fsdevel
On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:49:58PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
quoted
Direct IO semantics have always been that the application is allowed to overlap IO to the same range if it wants to. The result is undefined (just like issuing overlapping reads and writes to a disk at the same time) so it's the application's responsibility to avoid overlapping IO if it is a problem.I was thinking along the line to provide finer granularity lock to allow concurrent direct IO to different offset/range, but to same offset, they have to be serialized. If it's undefined behavior, i.e. overlapping is allowed, then concurrent dio implementation is much easier. But not sure if any apps currently using DIO aware of the ordering has to be done at the application level.
Yes, they're aware of it. And they consider it a bug if they ever do concurrent I/O to the same sector. -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step."