Hi,
On Sun, Apr 14, 2002 at 08:59:15AM -0400, Alexander Viro wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Apr 2002, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > To solve this, we really do need to have block_read_full_page() test
> > the uptodate state under protection of the buffer_head lock. We
> > already go through 3 stages in block_read_full_page(): gather the
> > buffers needing IO, then lock them, then submit the IO. To be safe,
> > we need a final test for buffer_uptodate() *after* we have locked the
> > required buffers.
>
> Ouch.
>
> I suspect that correct fix is to do that test in submit_bh() itself
> (and remove it from ll_rw_block()). IMO it's cleaner than messing
> with all callers out there... Linus?
Actually, if we move the test to submit_bh(), we _do_ need to mess
with all callers.
submit_bh() is currently an unconditional demand to perform a given IO
regardless of buffer state, so lots of callers (ext3 journal writes,
soft raid mirror writes etc) call it with private buffer_heads which
just don't have any persistent dirty / uptodate state. Changing
submit_bh() still means we need to audit all callers to make sure that
they set up those state flags correctly even for private bh'es.
Cheers,
Stephen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 22:00:23 EST