Hi,
On 2021-01-24 01:59:05 +, Al Viro wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 23, 2021 at 03:50:55PM -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
>
> > As there's only a shared lock, seems like both would end up with the
> > same ctx->pos and end up updating f_pos to the same offset (assuming the
>
Hi,
On 2021-01-23 15:50:55 -0800, Andres Freund wrote:
> It's also not clear to me that right now you'd necessarily get correct
> results if multiple IORING_OP_GETDENTS64 for the same fd get processed
> in different workers. Looking at iterate_dir(), it looks to me that the
&
s there's only a shared lock, seems like both would end up with the
same ctx->pos and end up updating f_pos to the same offset (assuming the
same count).
Am I missing something?
Greetings,
Andres Freund
Hi,
On 2019-09-11 14:04:20 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 03:33:27PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Especially with buffered io it's fairly easy to hit contention on the
> > inode lock, during writes. With something like io_urin
res
> > On Sat, Oct 01, 2011 at 10:49:27PM +0200, Andres Freund wrote:
> > > Don't need the i_mutex for those cases, only for SEEK_HOLE/DATA.
> > >
> > > Really-From: Andi Kleen
> > > Signed-off-by: Andi Kleen
> > > Signed-off-by: Andres Freu
