[lkml]   [2002]   [Sep]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: invalidate_inode_pages in 2.5.32/3
On Monday 23 September 2002 22:41, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> >>>>> " " == Andrew Morton <> writes:
> > Would it be possible to mark the inode as "needs invalidation",
> > and make user processes check that flag once they have i_sem?
> Not good enough unless you add those checks at the VFS/MM level.

Please see Rik's suggestion and my followups where we are talking about
handling this in the MM.

> Think
> for instance about mmap() where the filesystem is usually not involved
> once a pagein has occurred.
> > Do we really need to invalidate individual pages, or is it
> > real-life acceptable to invalidate the whole mapping?
> Invalidating the mapping is certainly a good alternative if it can be
> done cleanly.

But invalidate_inode_pages is (usually) just trying to do exactly that.
It doesn't work. Anyway, what if you have a 2 gig file with 1 meg
mmaped/locked/whatever by a database?

> Note that in doing so, we do not want to invalidate any reads or
> writes that may have been already scheduled. The existing mapping
> still would need to hang around long enough to permit them to
> complete.

With the mechanism I described above, that would just work. The fault
path would do lock_page, thus waiting for the IO to complete.

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 13:29    [W:0.072 / U:28.896 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site