Re: [PATCH] 2.6.14 patch for supporting madvise(MADV_REMOVE)

[Badari Pulavarty]

Andrew Morton wrote:
> Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > > Why does madvise_remove() have an explicit check for swapper_space?
> >
> > I really don't remember (I yanked code from some other kernel routine
> > vmtruncate()).
>
>
> I don't see such a thing anywhere.  vmtruncate() has the IS_SWAPFILE()
> test, which I guess vmtruncate_range() ought to have too, for
> future-safety.

Yep. That was the check. Since I don't have inode and have mapping
handy anyway, check was made using that. I could change it, if you wish.

> Logically, vmtruncate() should just be a special case of vmtruncate_range().
> But it's not - ugly, but hard to do anything about (need to implement
> ->truncate_range in all filesystems, but "know" which ones only support
> ->truncate_range() at eof).
>
>
> > > In your testing, how are you determining that the code is successfully
> > > removing the correct number of pages, from the correct file offset?
> >
> > I verified with test programs, added debug printk + looked through live
> > "crash" session + verified with UML testcases.
>
>
> OK, well please be sure to test it on 32-bit and 64-bit, operating in three
> ranges of the file: <2G, 2G-4G amd >4G.
Will do.

Thanks,
Badari

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/