From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail191.messagelabs.com (mail191.messagelabs.com [216.82.242.19]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F8876B021E for ; Fri, 7 May 2010 09:40:58 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 7 May 2010 09:40:37 -0400 From: Josef Bacik Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] Btrfs: add basic DIO read support Message-ID: <20100507134035.GA3360@localhost.localdomain> References: <20100506190101.GD13974@dhcp231-156.rdu.redhat.com> <20100507095537.GD19699@shareable.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100507095537.GD19699@shareable.org> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Jamie Lokier Cc: Josef Bacik , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Fri, May 07, 2010 at 10:55:37AM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote: > Josef Bacik wrote: > > 3) Lock the entire range during DIO. I originally had it so we would lock the > > extents as get_block was called, and then unlock them as the endio function was > > called, which worked great, but if we ever had an error in the submit_io hook, > > we could have locked an extent that would never be submitted for IO, so we > > wouldn't be able to unlock it, so this solution fixed that problem and made it a > > bit cleaner. > > Does this prevent concurrent DIOs to overlapping or nearby ranges? > It just prevents them from overlapping areas. Thanks, Josef -- 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: email@kvack.org