From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Werner Almesberger Subject: Re: barriers vs. reads Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:13:34 -0300 Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20040622201334.K1325@almesberger.net> References: <20040622005302.A1325@almesberger.net> <20040622073919.GV12881@suse.de> <20040622045004.C1325@almesberger.net> <20040622075531.GX12881@suse.de> <20040622112802.GA21456@mail.shareable.org> <20040622113245.GA1104@suse.de> <20040622155308.G1325@almesberger.net> <20040622195746.GB24771@mail.shareable.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Jens Axboe , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from almesberger.net ([63.105.73.238]:28941 "EHLO host.almesberger.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264984AbUFVXNl (ORCPT ); Tue, 22 Jun 2004 19:13:41 -0400 To: Jamie Lokier Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040622195746.GB24771@mail.shareable.org>; from jamie@shareable.org on Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 08:57:46PM +0100 List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Jamie Lokier wrote: > If there's a read which depends on a prior write, doesn't it make more > sense to just copy the data in memory for the parts which overlap? Probably. In this case, we'd have to fragment the read request into the part that's handled through this copy operation, and the 0-2 parts that need to come from disk. - Werner -- _________________________________________________________________________ / Werner Almesberger, Buenos Aires, Argentina wa@almesberger.net / /_http://www.almesberger.net/____________________________________________/