[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On 10/12/07, Hugh Dickins <> wrote:
> > But I keep suspecting that the answer might be the patch below (which
> > rather follows what drivers/block/rd.c is doing). I'm especially
> > worried that, rather than just AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE being returned
> > to userspace, bad enough in itself, you might be liable to hit that
> > BUG_ON(page_mapped(page)). shmem_writepage does not expect to be
> > called by anyone outside mm/vmscan.c, but unionfs can now get to it?
> Doesn't msync(2) get to it via mm/page-writeback.c:write_cache_pages()
> without unionfs even?

I believe not. Please do double-check my assertions, I've always found
the _writepages paths rather twisty; but my belief (supported by the
fact that we've not hit shmem_writepage's BUG_ON(page_mapped(page))
in five years) is that tmpfs/shmem opts out of all of that with its
in shmem_backing_dev_info, which avoids all those _writepages avenues
(e.g. through bdi_cap_writeback_dirty tests), and write_cache_pages is
just a subfunction of the _writepages.

So, while I don't disagree with your patch to write_cache_pages (though
it wasn't clear to me whether it should break from or continue the loop
if it ever does meet an AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE), I don't think that's
really the root of the problem.

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: 2007-10-14 10:47    [W:0.063 / U:6.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site