Re: [rfc] optimise unlock_page

[Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>]

On Sun, 13 May 2007, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 02:15:03PM +0100, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> 
> > But again I wonder just what the gain has been, once your double
> > unmap_mapping_range is factored in.  When I suggested before that
> > perhaps the double (well, treble including the one in truncate.c)
> > unmap_mapping_range might solve the problem you set out to solve
> > (I've lost sight of that!) without pagelock when faulting, you said:
> > 
> > > Well aside from being terribly ugly, it means we can still drop
> > > the dirty bit where we'd otherwise rather not, so I don't think
> > > we can do that.
> > 
> > but that didn't give me enough information to agree or disagree.
> 
> Oh, well invalidate wants to be able to skip dirty pages or have the
> filesystem do something special with them first. Once you have taken
> the page out of the pagecache but still mapped shared, then blowing
> it away doesn't actually solve the data loss problem... only makes
> the window of VM inconsistency smaller.

Right, I think I see what you mean now, thanks: userspace
must not for a moment be allowed to write to orphaned pages.

Whereas it's not an issue for the privately COWed pages you added
the second unmap_mapping_range for: because it's only truncation
that has to worry about them, so they're heading for SIGBUS anyway.

Yes, and the page_mapped tests in mm/truncate.c are just racy
heuristics without the page lock you now put into faulting.

Hugh

--
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>