>>>>> " " == Andrew Morton <akpm@zip.com.au> writes:
> Oh. I thought this was a "purely theoretical" discussion
> because it only pertains to directory data. You seem to be
> saying that NFS is doing this for S_ISREG pagecache also?
Yes. Chuck's particular example pertains to directory data, but if
we're to expand the discussion to what *should* we be doing, then we
need to consider the S_ISREG case too.
> Again: what do you _want_ to do? Having potentially incorrect
> pagecache mapped into process memory space is probably not the
> answer to that ;)
> Should we be forcibly unmapping the pages from pagetables?
> That would result in them being faulted in again, and re-read.
If we could do that for unlocked pages, and at the same time flush out
any pending writes, then that would be ideal. As long as the
page_count() thing is there, we *do* unfortunately have a potential
for cache corruption.
>> (btw: there's currently a bug w.r.t. that'. If I understand you
>> correctly, the releasepage() thing is unrelated to
>> page->buffers, but the call in shrink_cache() is masked by an
>> 'if (page->buffers))
> That would be in a 2.4 kernel? In 2.4, page->buffers can only
> contain buffers. If it contains anything else the kernel will
> die.
2.5.33
> If your mapping has old, dirty pages then the VM will call your
-> vm_writeback to write some of them back. Or it will repeatedly
> call ->writepage if you don't define ->vm_writeback. That's
> the place to clean the pages.
OK. I'll think about that. I'm off to France on a fortnight's vacation
now. Should leave me with a bit of free time, so once I finish the VFS
credential code, I'll try to find some time to catch up on your recent
changes...
Cheers,
Trond
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 22:00:28 EST