[lkml]   [2006]   [Dec]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Ok, explained.. (was Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_mkclean_one)

    On Fri, 29 Dec 2006, Theodore Tso wrote:
    > I'm confused. Does this mean that if "fs blocksize"=="VM pagesize"
    > this bug can't trigger?

    No. Even if there is just a single buffer-head, if the filesystem ever
    writes out that _single_ buffer-head out of turn (ie before the VM
    actually asks it to, with "->writepage()"), then the same issue will

    In fact, a bigger fs blocksize will likely just make this easier to
    trigger (although I doubt it makes a big difference), since any
    out-of-order buffer flushback will happen for the whole page, rather than
    just a part of the page.

    So the "problem" really ends up being that the filesystem does flushing
    that the VM isn't aware of, so when the VM did "set_page_dirty()" at an
    earlier time, the VM _expected_ the "->writepages()" call that happened
    much later to write the whole page - but because the FS had flushed things
    behind it backs even _before_ the "->writepage" happens, by the time the
    VM actually asks for the page to be written out, the FS layer won't
    actually write it all out any more.

    Blocksize doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is whether something
    writes out data on a buffer-cache level, not on a "page cache" level. Ext3
    apparently does this in "ordered" data more at least (and hey, I suspect
    that the code that tries to release buffer head data might try to do it on
    its own too).

    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2009-11-18 23:46    [W:0.028 / U:63.664 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site