On Fri 21-12-12 12:12:46, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > 2. The current behavior is surprising -- the timestamp resulting from
> > > > an mmaped write will be before the write, not after. This
> > > > contradicts
> > > > the mmap(2) manpage, which says:
> > > >
> > > > The st_ctime and st_mtime field for a file mapped with PROT_WRITE
> > > > and
> > > > MAP_SHARED will be updated after a write to the mapped
> > > > region, and
> > > > before a subsequent msync(2) with the MS_SYNC or MS_ASYNC flag, if
> > > > one
> > > > occurs.
> > >
> > > What you propose (time updates in do_writepages()) violates this.
> > > msync(MS_ASYNC) doesn't actually start any IO, therefore the
> > > timestamp wil not be updated.
> > >
> > > Besides, what POSIX actually says is:
> > >
> > > | The st_ctime and st_mtime fields of a file that is mapped with
> > > | MAP_SHARED and PROT_WRITE shall be marked for update at some point
> > > | in the interval between a write reference to the mapped region and
> > > | the next call to msync() with MS_ASYNC or MS_SYNC for that portion
> > > | of the file by any process.
> > >
> > > Which means updating the timestamp during the first write is
> > > perfectly acceptible. Indeed, by definition, we are compliant with
> > > the man page because the update is after the write has occurred.
> > > That is, the write triggered the page fault, so the page fault
> > > processing where we update the timestamps is definitely after the
> > > write occurred. :)
> > Well, but there can be more writes to the already write faulted page.
> > They can come seconds after we called ->page_mkwrite() and thus updated
> > time stamps. So Andy is correct we violate the spec AFAICT.
>
> Depends how you read it. It can be updated at *any time* between the
> write and the msync() call, which is exactly what happens right now.
> The fact that second and subsequent writes between the first write
> and the msync call do not change it is irrelevant, as the first one
> is the one that matters... Indeed, if you read to the letter of the
> posix definition, then updating timestamps in the msync call is also
> incorrect, because that is not between the write and the msync()
> call.
>
> What I'm saying is saying the current behaviour is wrong is
> dependent on a specific intepretation of the standard, and the same
> arguments can be made against this proposal. Hence such arguments
> are not a convincing/compelling reason to change behaviours.
I have to say I'm not following you :) If I have the program that does:
fd = open("file", O_RDWR);
addr = mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_WRITE, MAP_SHARED, fd, 0);
addr[0] = 'a';
sleep(1);
addr[1] = 'b';
close(fd);
Then application of the spec to the second write clearly states that time
stamps should be updated sometime after the write of 'b'. I don't see any
space for other interpretation there... And currently we update time stamps
only at the moment we write 'a'.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
