![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Miklos Szeredi wrote:
>>> Inspired by Peter Staubach's patch and the resulting comments.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> An updated version of the original patch was submitted to LKML
>> yesterday... :-)
>>
>
> Strange coincidence :)
>
>
>>> file = vma->vm_file;
>>> start = vma->vm_end;
>>> + mapping_update_time(file);
>>> if ((flags & MS_SYNC) && file &&
>>> (vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
>>> get_file(file);
>>>
>>>
>> It seems to me that this might lead to file times being updated for
>> non-MAP_SHARED mappings.
>>
>
> In theory no, because the COW-ed pages become anonymous and are not
> part of the original mapping any more.
>
>
I must profess to having a incomplete understanding of all of this
support, but then why would it be necessary to test VM_SHARED at
this point in msync()?
I ran into problems early on with file times being updated incorrectly
so I am a little sensitive this aspect.
>>> +int set_page_dirty_mapping(struct page *page);
>>>
>>>
>> This aspect of the design seems intrusive to me. I didn't see a strong
>> reason to introduce new versions of many of the routines just to handle
>> these semantics. What motivated this part of your design? Why the new
>> _mapping versions of routines?
>>
>
> Because there's no way to know inside the set_page_dirty() functions
> if the dirtying comes from a memory mapping or from a modification
> through a normal write(). And they have different semantics, for
> write() the modification times are updated immediately.
Perhaps I didn't understand what page_mapped() does, but it does seem to
have the right semantics as far as I could see.
Thanx...
ps
-
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: 2007-02-21 19:59 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||