Commit 866707fc authored by Jan Blunck's avatar Jan Blunck Committed by Linus Torvalds
Browse files

Documentation/filesystems/Locking: update documentation on llseek() wrt BKL



The inode's i_size is not protected by the big kernel lock.  Therefore it
does not make sense to recommend taking the BKL in filesystems llseek
operations.  Instead it should use the inode's mutex or use just use
i_size_read() instead.  Add a note that this is not protecting
file->f_pos.
Signed-off-by: default avatarJan Blunck <jblunck@suse.de>
Acked-by: default avatarAlan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@gmail.com>
Cc: John Kacur <jkacur@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
parent ca572727
......@@ -429,8 +429,9 @@ check_flags: no
implementations. If your fs is not using generic_file_llseek, you
need to acquire and release the appropriate locks in your ->llseek().
For many filesystems, it is probably safe to acquire the inode
mutex. Note some filesystems (i.e. remote ones) provide no
protection for i_size so you will need to use the BKL.
mutex or just to use i_size_read() instead.
Note: this does not protect the file->f_pos against concurrent modifications
since this is something the userspace has to take care about.
Note: ext2_release() was *the* source of contention on fs-intensive
loads and dropping BKL on ->release() helps to get rid of that (we still
......
Markdown is supported
0% or .
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment