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

    --
    Daniel
    -
    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: 2005-03-22 13:28    [W:3.727 / U:0.644 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site