From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@gmail.com>,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
"Darrick J . Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: pagecache locking (was: bcachefs status update) merged)
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 08:47:14 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190617224714.GR14363@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgz+7O0pdn8Wfxc5EQKNy44FTtf4LAPO1WgCidNjxbWzg@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019 at 06:01:07PM -1000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 5:08 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > I do not believe that posix itself actually requires that at all,
> > although extended standards may.
>
> So I tried to see if I could find what this perhaps alludes to.
>
> And I suspect it's not in the read/write thing, but the pthreads side
> talks about atomicity.
>
> Interesting, but I doubt if that's actually really intentional, since
> the non-thread read/write behavior specifically seems to avoid the
> whole concurrency issue.
The wording of posix changes every time they release a new version
of the standard, and it's _never_ obvious what behaviour the
standard is actually meant to define. They are always written with
sufficient ambiguity and wiggle room that they could mean
_anything_. The POSIX 2017.1 standard you quoted is quite different
to older versions, but it's no less ambiguous...
> The pthreads atomicity thing seems to be about not splitting up IO and
> doing it in chunks when you have m:n threading models, but can be
> (mis-)construed to have threads given higher atomicity guarantees than
> processes.
Right, but regardless of the spec we have to consider that the
behaviour of XFS comes from it's Irix heritage (actually from EFS,
the predecessor of XFS from the late 1980s). i.e. the IO exclusion
model dates to long before POSIX had anything to say about pthreads,
and it's wording about atomicity could only refer to to
multi-process interactions.
These days, however, is the unfortunate reality of a long tail of
applications developed on other Unix systems under older POSIX
specifications that are still being ported to and deployed on Linux.
Hence the completely ambiguous behaviours defined in the older specs
are still just as important these days as the completely ambiguous
behaviours defined in the new specifications. :/
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-17 22:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 62+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-10 19:14 bcachefs status update (it's done cooking; let's get this sucker merged) Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 01/12] Compiler Attributes: add __flatten Kent Overstreet
2019-06-12 17:16 ` Greg KH
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 02/12] locking: SIX locks (shared/intent/exclusive) Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 03/12] mm: pagecache add lock Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 04/12] mm: export find_get_pages() Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 05/12] fs: insert_inode_locked2() Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 06/12] fs: factor out d_mark_tmpfile() Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 07/12] Propagate gfp_t when allocating pte entries from __vmalloc Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 08/12] block: Add some exports for bcachefs Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 09/12] bcache: optimize continue_at_nobarrier() Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 10/12] bcache: move closures to lib/ Kent Overstreet
2019-06-11 10:25 ` Coly Li
2019-06-13 7:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-06-13 11:04 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 11/12] closures: closure_wait_event() Kent Overstreet
2019-06-11 10:25 ` Coly Li
2019-06-12 17:17 ` Greg KH
2019-06-10 19:14 ` [PATCH 12/12] closures: fix a race on wakeup from closure_sync Kent Overstreet
2019-07-16 10:47 ` Coly Li
2019-07-18 7:46 ` Coly Li
2019-07-22 17:22 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-06-10 20:46 ` bcachefs status update (it's done cooking; let's get this sucker merged) Linus Torvalds
2019-06-11 1:17 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-06-11 4:33 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-12 16:21 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-06-12 23:02 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-13 18:36 ` pagecache locking (was: bcachefs status update) merged) Kent Overstreet
2019-06-13 21:13 ` Andreas Dilger
2019-06-13 21:21 ` Kent Overstreet
2019-06-14 0:35 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-13 23:55 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-14 2:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-14 7:30 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-15 1:15 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-14 3:08 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-15 4:01 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-17 22:47 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2019-06-17 23:38 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-18 4:21 ` Amir Goldstein
2019-06-19 10:38 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-19 22:37 ` Dave Chinner
2019-07-03 0:04 ` pagecache locking Boaz Harrosh
[not found] ` <DM6PR19MB250857CB8A3A1C8279D6F2F3C5FB0@DM6PR19MB2508.namprd19.prod.outlook.com>
2019-07-03 1:25 ` Boaz Harrosh
2019-07-05 23:31 ` Dave Chinner
2019-07-07 15:05 ` Boaz Harrosh
2019-07-07 23:55 ` Dave Chinner
2019-07-08 13:31 ` Jan Kara
2019-07-09 23:47 ` Dave Chinner
2019-07-10 8:41 ` Jan Kara
2019-06-14 17:08 ` pagecache locking (was: bcachefs status update) merged) Kent Overstreet
2019-06-19 8:21 ` bcachefs status update (it's done cooking; let's get this sucker merged) Jan Kara
2019-07-03 1:04 ` [PATCH] mm: Support madvise_willneed override by Filesystems Boaz Harrosh
2019-07-03 17:21 ` Jan Kara
2019-07-03 18:03 ` Boaz Harrosh
2019-06-11 4:55 ` bcachefs status update (it's done cooking; let's get this sucker merged) Linus Torvalds
2019-06-11 14:26 ` Matthew Wilcox
2019-06-11 4:10 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-11 4:39 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-06-11 7:10 ` Dave Chinner
2019-06-12 2:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2019-07-03 5:59 ` Stefan K
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=20190617224714.GR14363@dread.disaster.area \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=amir73il@gmail.com \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kent.overstreet@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox