All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hugh@veritas.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update ctime and mtime for mmaped write
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:11:31 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45DDF8F3.2020304@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1HKIUk-0006Sl-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>

Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>>>>>> +int set_page_dirty_mapping(struct page *page);
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> This aspect of the design seems intrusive to me.  I didn't see a strong
>>>>>> reason to introduce new versions of many of the routines just to handle
>>>>>> these semantics.  What motivated this part of your design?  Why the new
>>>>>> _mapping versions of routines?
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Because there's no way to know inside the set_page_dirty() functions
>>>>> if the dirtying comes from a memory mapping or from a modification
>>>>> through a normal write().  And they have different semantics, for
>>>>> write() the modification times are updated immediately.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> Perhaps I didn't understand what page_mapped() does, but it does seem to
>>>> have the right semantics as far as I could see.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> The problems will start, when you have a file that is both mapped and
>>> modified with write().  Then the dirying from the write() will set the
>>> flag, and that will have undesirable consequences.
>>>       
>> I don't think that I quite follow the logic.  The dirtying from write()
>> will set the flag, but then the mtime will get updated and the flag will
>> be cleared by the hook in file_update_time().  Right?
>>     
>
> Take this example:
>
>     fd = open()
>     addr = mmap(.., fd)
>     write(fd, ...)
>     close(fd)
>     sleep(100)
>     msync(addr,...)
>     munmap(addr)
>
> The file times will be updated in write(), but with your patch, the
> bit in the mapping will also be set.
>
> Then in msync() the file times will be updated again, which is wrong,
> since the memory was _not_ modified through the mapping.

This is correct.  I have updated my proposed patch to include the clearing
of AS_MCTIME in the routine which updates the mtime field.  I haven't
reposted it yet until I complete testing of the new resulting system.  I
anticipate doing this later today.

    Thanx..

       ps

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Peter Staubach <staubach@redhat.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, hugh@veritas.com,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] update ctime and mtime for mmaped write
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 15:11:31 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <45DDF8F3.2020304@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E1HKIUk-0006Sl-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>

Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>>>>>> +int set_page_dirty_mapping(struct page *page);
>>>>>>>   
>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>           
>>>>>>>               
>>>>>> This aspect of the design seems intrusive to me.  I didn't see a strong
>>>>>> reason to introduce new versions of many of the routines just to handle
>>>>>> these semantics.  What motivated this part of your design?  Why the new
>>>>>> _mapping versions of routines?
>>>>>>     
>>>>>>         
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Because there's no way to know inside the set_page_dirty() functions
>>>>> if the dirtying comes from a memory mapping or from a modification
>>>>> through a normal write().  And they have different semantics, for
>>>>> write() the modification times are updated immediately.
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> Perhaps I didn't understand what page_mapped() does, but it does seem to
>>>> have the right semantics as far as I could see.
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> The problems will start, when you have a file that is both mapped and
>>> modified with write().  Then the dirying from the write() will set the
>>> flag, and that will have undesirable consequences.
>>>       
>> I don't think that I quite follow the logic.  The dirtying from write()
>> will set the flag, but then the mtime will get updated and the flag will
>> be cleared by the hook in file_update_time().  Right?
>>     
>
> Take this example:
>
>     fd = open()
>     addr = mmap(.., fd)
>     write(fd, ...)
>     close(fd)
>     sleep(100)
>     msync(addr,...)
>     munmap(addr)
>
> The file times will be updated in write(), but with your patch, the
> bit in the mapping will also be set.
>
> Then in msync() the file times will be updated again, which is wrong,
> since the memory was _not_ modified through the mapping.

This is correct.  I have updated my proposed patch to include the clearing
of AS_MCTIME in the routine which updates the mtime field.  I haven't
reposted it yet until I complete testing of the new resulting system.  I
anticipate doing this later today.

    Thanx..

       ps

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2007-02-22 20:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2007-02-21 17:51 [PATCH] update ctime and mtime for mmaped write Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 17:51 ` Miklos Szeredi, Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 18:07 ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-21 18:07   ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-21 18:23   ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 18:23     ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 18:54     ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-21 18:54       ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-21 19:07       ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 19:07         ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 17:36         ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 17:36           ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 18:16           ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 18:16             ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 20:11             ` Peter Staubach [this message]
2007-02-22 20:11               ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 20:43               ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 20:43                 ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 20:50                 ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 20:50                   ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-21 18:12 ` Trond Myklebust
2007-02-21 18:12   ` Trond Myklebust
2007-02-21 18:28   ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 18:28     ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 18:36     ` Trond Myklebust
2007-02-21 18:36       ` Trond Myklebust
2007-02-21 18:50       ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 18:50         ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-21 18:50       ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-21 18:50         ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22  4:26 ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-22  4:26   ` Andrew Morton
2007-02-22  7:49   ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22  7:49     ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 17:39     ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 17:39       ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 18:08       ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 18:08         ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 20:14         ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 20:14           ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 20:48           ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 20:48             ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 20:55             ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 20:55               ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 21:04             ` Trond Myklebust
2007-02-22 21:04               ` Trond Myklebust
2007-02-22 21:28               ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 21:28                 ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 21:52                 ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 21:52                   ` Peter Staubach
2007-02-22 22:08                   ` Miklos Szeredi
2007-02-22 22:08                     ` Miklos Szeredi

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=45DDF8F3.2020304@redhat.com \
    --to=staubach@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hugh@veritas.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=miklos@szeredi.hu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.