[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] [Lsf] Preliminary Agenda and Activities for LSF

On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 18:00 -0700, Joel Becker wrote: 
> On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 02:49:58PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-03-30 at 13:17 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > For direct IO, the IO lock is always taken in shared mode, so we can
> > > have concurrent read and write operations taking place at once
> > > regardless of the offset into the file.
> > > 
> > 
> > thanks for reminding me,in xfs concurrent direct IO write to the same
> > offset is allowed.
> 	ocfs2 as well, with the same sort of strategem (including across
> the cluster).
Thanks for providing view from OCFS2 side. This is good to know.

> > > Direct IO semantics have always been that the application is allowed
> > > to overlap IO to the same range if it wants to. The result is
> > > undefined (just like issuing overlapping reads and writes to a disk
> > > at the same time) so it's the application's responsibility to avoid
> > > overlapping IO if it is a problem.
> > > 
> > 
> > I was thinking along the line to provide finer granularity lock to allow
> > concurrent direct IO to different offset/range, but to same offset, they
> > have to be serialized. If it's undefined behavior, i.e. overlapping is
> > allowed, then concurrent dio implementation is much easier. But not sure
> > if any apps currently using DIO aware of the ordering has to be done at
> > the application level. 
> 	Oh dear God no.  One of the major DIO use cases is to tell the
> kernel, "I know I won't do that, so don't spend any effort protecting
> me."
> Joel

Looks like so -

So I think we could have a mode to turn on/off concurrent dio if the non
heavy duty applications relies on filesystem to take care of the


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]