Re: [patch][rfc] 5/5: core remove PageReserved

[William Lee Irwin III]

William Lee Irwin III <wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  An answer should be devised for this. My numerous SCSI CD-ROM devices
>>  (I have 5 across several different machines of several different arches)
>>  are rather unlikely to be happy with /* FIXME: XXX ... as an answer.
[...]
>>  Mutatis mutandis for my SCSI tape drive.

On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 09:50:11PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> This scsi code is already rather wrong.  There isn't much point in just
> setting PG_dirty and leaving the page marked as clean in the radix tree. 
> As it is we'll lose data if the user reads it into a MAP_SHARED memory
> buffer.
> set_page_dirty_lock() should be used here.  That can sleep.
> The above two functions are called under write_lock_irqsave() (at least)
> and might be called from irq context (dunno).  So we cannot use
> set_page_dirty_lock() and we don't have a ref on the page's inode.  We
> could use set_page_dirty() and be racy against page reclaim.
> But to get all this correct (and it's very incorrect now) we'd need to punt
> the page dirtying up to process context, along the lines of
> bio_check_pages_dirty().
> Or, if st_unmap_user_pages() and sgl_unmap_user_pages() are not called from
> irq context then we should arrange for them to be called without locks held
> and use set_page_dirty_lock().

This all sounds very reasonable. I was originally more concerned about
the new FIXME getting introduced but this sounds like a good way to
resolve the preexisting FIXME's surrounding all this.


-- wli
-
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/