From: Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>
To: Yehuda Sadeh <yehuda@hq.newdream.net>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, sage@newdream.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm: invalidate_mapping_pages checks boundaries when lock fails
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:58:54 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100219035854.GA11856@cmpxchg.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1266542537-5040-1-git-send-email-yehuda@hq.newdream.net>
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 05:22:17PM -0800, Yehuda Sadeh wrote:
> Not sure that I'm not missing something obvious. When invalidate_mapping_pages
> fails to lock the page, we continue to the next iteration, skipping the
> next > end check. This can lead to a case where we invalidate a page that is
> beyond the requested boundaries. Currently there are two callers that might be
> affected, one is btrfs and the second one is the fadvice syscall.
> Does that look right, or am I just missing something?
This can already happen with the first page being at an index above end
as the check only happens after we invalidated the page.
The damage is losing one cache-only (clean, unmapped) page. It is a bit
ugly but not a huge problem I suppose.
How about checking page->index against end, like in the truncation case,
before the invalidation? That should take care of both cases.
We already rely on a page->index when the page is pinned but locked by
somebody else. And I think that's fine.
Can we not just make that the default? That could simplify the inner
loop to something like
index = page->index;
if (index > end)
break;
next = max(index, next) + 1;
if (!trylock_page(page))
continue;
ret += invalidate_inode_page(page);
unlock_page(page);
or something.
Hannes
--
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:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-19 3:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-19 1:22 Yehuda Sadeh
2010-02-19 3:58 ` Johannes Weiner [this message]
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=20100219035854.GA11856@cmpxchg.org \
--to=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=sage@newdream.net \
--cc=yehuda@hq.newdream.net \
/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