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:0.122 / U:2.716 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site