![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:45:50 -0800 Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > akpm@osdl.org wrote: > > From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org> > > > > Accounting writes is fairly simple: whenever a process flips a page from clean > > to dirty, we accuse it of having caused a write to underlying storage of > > PAGE_CACHE_SIZE bytes. > > On architectures where dirtying a page doesn't cause a page fault (like i386), couldn't you end up billing the wrong process (in fact, I think that even on other archituctures set_page_dirty() doesn't get called immediately in the page fault handler)? Yes, that would be a problem in 2.6.18 and earlier. In 2.6.19 and later, we do take a fault when transitioning a page from pte-clean to pte-dirty. That was done to get the dirty-page accounting right - to avoid the all-of-memory-is-dirty-but-the-kernel-doesn't-know-it problem. > AFAICS, set_page_dirty() is mostly called when trying to unmap a page when trying to shrink LRU lists, and there is no guarantee that this happens under the process that dirtied it (in fact, the set_page_dirty() is often done by kswapd). hm, that code is still there in zap_pte_range(). If all is well, that set_page_dirty() call should never return true. Peter did, you ever test for that? (Well, it might return true in rare races, because zap_pte_range() doesn't lock the pages) - 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/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-12-13 09:03 [W:1.364 / U:1.680 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||