Messages in this thread | | | From | Daniel Phillips <> | Subject | Re: invalidate_inode_pages in 2.5.32/3 | Date | Mon, 9 Sep 2002 23:44:08 +0200 |
| |
> I'm very unkeen about using the inaccurate invalidate_inode_pages > for anything which matters, really. And the consistency of pagecache > data matters. > > NFS should be using something stronger. And that's basically > vmtruncate() without the i_size manipulation.
Yes, that looks good. Semantics are basically "and don't come back until every damm page is gone" which is enforced by the requirement that we hold the mapping->page_lock though one entire scan of the truncated region. (Yes, I remember sweating this one out a year or two ago so it doesn't eat 100% CPU on regular occasions.)
So, specifically, we want:
void invalidate_inode_pages(struct inode *inode) { truncate_inode_pages(mapping, 0); }
Is it any harder than that?
By the way, now that we're all happy with the radix tree, we might as well just go traverse that instead of all the mapping->*_pages. (Not that I'm seriously suggesting rocking the boat that way just now, but it might yield some interesting de-crufting possibilities.)
> Hold i_sem, > vmtruncate_list() for assured pagetable takedown, proper page > locking to take the pages out of pagecache, etc. > > Sure, we could replace the page_count() heuristic with a > page->pte.direct heuristic. Which would work just as well. Or > better. Or worse. Who knows? > > Guys, can we sort out the NFS locking so that it is possible to > take the correct locks to get the 100% behaviour?
Trond, will the above work?
Now, what is this invalidate_inode_pages2 seepage about? Called from one place. Sheesh.
-- 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/
| |