Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas? | From | Paul McKenney <> | Date | Sat, 17 May 2003 11:19:39 -0700 |
| |
> On Thu, May 15, 2003 at 02:20:00AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> wrote: > > > > > > and it's still racy > > > > damn, and it just booted ;) > > > > I'm just a little bit concerned over the ever-expanding inode. Do you > > think the dual sequence numbers can be replaced by a single generation > > counter? > > yes, I wrote it as a single counter first, but was unreadable and it had > more branches, so I added the other sequence number to make it cleaner. > I don't mind another 4 bytes, that cacheline should be hot anyways. > > > I do think that we should push the revalidate operation over into the vm_ops. > > That'll require an extra arg to ->nopage, but it has a spare one anyway (!). > > not sure why you need a callback, the lowlevel if needed can serialize > using the same locking in the address space that vmtruncate uses. I > would wait a real case need before adding a callback.
FYI, we verified that the revalidate callback could also do the same job that the proposed nopagedone callback does -- permitting filesystems that provide their on vm_operations_struct to avoid the race between page faults and invalidating a page from a mapped file.
Thanx, Paul
- 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/
| |