lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Consistency of loops in mm/truncate.c?
On Sun, 22 May 2011 15:27:41 -0700 (PDT)
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com> wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> I have a series aimed at 2.6.41 to remove mm/shmem.c's peculiar radix
> tree of swap entries, using slots in the file's standard radix_tree
> instead - prompted in part by https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/1/22/110
>
> There's a patch to give shmem its own truncation loop, handling pages
> and swap entries in the same pass. For that I want to start from a
> copy of truncate_inode_page_range(), but notice some discrepancies
> between the different loops in mm/truncate.c, so want to standardize
> them first before copying.
>
> The advancement of index is hard to follow: we rely upon page->index
> of an unlocked page persisting, yet we're ashamed of doing so, sometimes
> reading it again once locked. invalidate_mapping_pages() apologizes for
> this, but I think we should now just document that page->index is not
> modified until the page is freed.

That should be true under i_mutex and perhaps other external locking.
We could put some debug checks in there to catch any situation where
->index changed after the page was locked.

> invalidate_inode_pages2_range() has two sophistications not seen
> elsewhere, which 7afadfdc says were folded in by akpm (along with
> a page->index one):
>
> - Don't look up more pages than we're going to use:
> seems a good thing for me to fold into truncate_inode_pages_range()
> and invalidate_mapping_pages() too.

I guess so. I doubt if it makes a measurable performance difference
(except maybe in the case of small direct-io's?) but consistency is
good.

> - Check for the cursor wrapping at the end of the mapping:
> but with
>
> #if BITS_PER_LONG==32
> #define MAX_LFS_FILESIZE (((u64)PAGE_CACHE_SIZE << (BITS_PER_LONG-1))-1)
> #elif BITS_PER_LONG==64
> #define MAX_LFS_FILESIZE 0x7fffffffffffffffUL
> #endif
>
> I don't see how page->index + 1 would ever be 0, even if one or
> other of those "-1"s went away; so may I delete the "wrapped" case?

err yes, that seems bogus now and was bogus at the time. I never
trusted that s_maxbytes thing :)



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-23 22:47    [W:0.044 / U:4.384 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site