Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Nov 2005 20:41:07 -0800 | From | Badari Pulavarty <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.6.14 patch for supporting madvise(MADV_REMOVE) |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote: > Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |