Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Thu, 9 May 2002 15:21:16 +0200 | From | Andrea Arcangeli <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] double flush_page_to_ram |
| |
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 05:52:00AM -0700, David S. Miller wrote: > That is correct.
so I will need to backout this one liner from my vm updates too.
--- 2.4.19-pre4/mm/filemap.c~aa-150-read_write_tweaks Tue Mar 26 23:11:33 2002 +++ 2.4.19-pre4-akpm/mm/filemap.c Tue Mar 26 23:11:33 2002 @@ -1968,7 +1968,6 @@ success: * and possibly copy it over to another page.. */ mark_page_accessed(page); - flush_page_to_ram(page); return page; no_cached_page: The reason I did this patch is because it was functional equivalent to old 2.4 kernels.
in turn old 2.4 kernels were all wrong:
if (no_share) { struct page *new_page = alloc_page(GFP_HIGHUSER); if (new_page) { copy_user_highpage(new_page, old_page, address); flush_page_to_ram(new_page); } else new_page = NOPAGE_OOM; page_cache_release(page); return new_page; } flush_page_to_ram(old_page); return old_page;
they don't flush old_page before the the memcpy, they only flush the _anon_ page _after_ the memcpy like current kernel with vm updates or Hugh's patch is doing (never the pagecache if it's an early cow). It seems like moving the early cow into memory.c fixed the flush_page_to_ram bug by luck, because Hugh's patch is otherwise equivalent to old 2.4 kernels.
Confirm?
If yes, I prefer to move the flush_page_to_ram on the _pagecache_ _before_ the memcpy into memory.c, it's cleaner if the pagecache layer doesn't need to care about cache aliasing between kernel direct mapping and userspace address space (but that it only cares about struct pages and filesystem, so only kernel side), and that such user-related part is covered only in memory.c.
Andrea - 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/
| |