[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: invalidate_inode_pages in 2.5.32/3
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.

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: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:0.231 / U:2.264 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site