Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: invalidate_inode_pages in 2.5.32/3 | Date | Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:53:58 +0200 |
| |
On Wednesday 11 September 2002 02:38, Andrew Morton wrote: > Daniel Phillips wrote: > > > > > ... > > We do get > > around to walking the ptes at file close I believe. Is that not driven by > > zap_page_range, which moves any orphaned pte dirty bits down into the struct > > page? > > Nope, close will just leave all the pages pte-dirty or PageDirty in > memory. truncate will nuke all the ptes and then the pagecache. > > But the normal way in which pte-dirty pages find their way to the > backing file is: > > - page reclaim runs try_to_unmap or > > - user runs msync(). (Which will only clean that mm's ptes!) > > These will run set_page_dirty(), making the page visible to > one of the many things which run writeback.
So we just quietly drop any dirty memory mapped to a file if the user doesn't run msync? Is that correct behaviour? It sure sounds wrong.
-- Daniel - 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/
| |