From: Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@novell.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: shaggy@austin.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] zap_pte_range should not mark non-uptodate pages dirty
Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2004 01:20:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20041021232059.GE8756@dualathlon.random> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20041021160233.68a84971.akpm@osdl.org>
On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 04:02:33PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@novell.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 21, 2004 at 02:45:31PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Maybe we should revisit invalidate_inode_pages2(). It used to be an
> > > invariant that "pages which are mapped into process address space are
> > > always uptodate". We broke that (good) invariant and we're now seeing
> > > some fallout. There may be more.
> >
> > such invariant doesn't exists since 2.4.10. There's no way to get mmaps
> > reload data from disk without breaking such an invariant.
>
> There are at least two ways:
>
> a) Set a new page flag in invalidate, test+clear that at fault time
What's the point of adding a new page flag when the invariant
!PageUptodate && page_mapcount(page) already provides the information?
I turned a condition that previously was impossible, and it made such
condition useful as another useful invariant, instead of a BUG_ON
invariant. The BUG itself guarantees us nobody was using it for other
purposes, infact invalidate_inode_pages2 is what triggered this in the
first place.
> b) shoot down all pte's mapping the locked page at invalidate time, mark the
> page not uptodate.
invalidate should run fast, I didn't enforce coherency or it'd hurt too
much the O_DIRECT write if something is mapped, we only allow buffered
read against O_DIRECT write to work coherently, the mmap coherency has
never been provided to avoid having to search for vmas in the prio_tree
for every single write to an inode.
> The latter is complex but has the advantage of fixing the current
> half-assed situation wherein existing mmaps are seeing invalidated data.
that's a feature not a bug since 2.4.10. Nobody ever asked for such
coherency, all we provide is read against write or read against read
(write against write only with both writes O_DIRECT or both writes
buffered). mmaps are ignored by O_DIRECT, mmaps don't crash the kernel
(well modulo the PageReserved check added in 2.6) but that's all.
> We could just remove the BUG in mpage_writepage() (which I assume is the
> one which was being hit) but we might still have a not uptodate page with
> uptodate buffers and I suspect that the kernel will either go BUG there
> instead or will bring the page uptodate again without performing any I/O.
> But I haven't checked that.
how can this be related to mmapped pages? Isn't this only an issue
with invalidate_inode_pages2? I agree we miss an invalidate of the bh
there. the mpage_readpage not using bh coupled with the page-size
alignment enforced by the 2.4 O_DIRECT API (not like 2.6 that uses
hardblocksize alignment) probably helps a lot in hiding this I guess.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-10-21 23:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-10-21 21:15 Dave Kleikamp
2004-10-21 21:45 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-21 22:36 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-10-21 23:02 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-21 23:20 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
2004-10-21 23:42 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-22 0:15 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-22 0:41 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-10-22 2:51 ` Rik van Riel
2004-10-22 16:19 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-10-22 0:30 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-10-22 1:22 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-10-22 2:03 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-22 16:17 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-10-22 17:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-10-22 23:24 ` Andrew Morton
2004-10-25 13:58 ` Dave Kleikamp
2004-10-26 0:35 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-09 14:15 ` Dave Kleikamp
2004-11-09 14:46 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2004-11-09 19:51 ` Andrew Morton
2004-11-09 19:46 ` Andrew Morton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20041021232059.GE8756@dualathlon.random \
--to=andrea@novell.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=shaggy@austin.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox