On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 02:02:41PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007 08:39:16 +1100
> David Chinner <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 11, 2007 at 06:13:29AM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > This email lists some known regressions in 2.6.20-rc4 compared to 2.6.19
> > > with patches available.
> > >
> > > Subject : BUG: at mm/truncate.c:60 cancel_dirty_page() (XFS)
> > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/5/308
> > > Submitter : Sami Farin <[email protected]>
> > > Handled-By : David Chinner <[email protected]>
> > > Patch : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/1/7/201
> > > Status : patch available
> >
> > Patch is broken, do not merge. The original had an off-by-one bug in
> > it, and the fixed one I have has just shown a worse problem than
> > before - partial page truncation (i.e. filesystem block size less
> > than page size) is busted because invalidate_complete_page2_range() can
> > only handle complete pages.
> >
> > Andrew - looking at unmap_mapping_pages, it says it cannot handle
> > partial pages and must get rid of them whereas vmtrucate() handles
> > partial pages but changes file size so can't be used. I see that
> > vmtruncate handles this by not unmapping the first partial page.
> >
> > I can use the vmtruncate mechanism (unmap_mapping_pages, then
> > truncate_inode_pages) but that seems racy to me because we are not
> > actually truncating the file so a mmap could remap a page between
> > the unmap and the truncate and hence we still get the warning.
>
> Yes, truncate relies upon there being nothing outside i_size, and that
> i_mutex is held.
>
> > So the question is - is there any generic function that handles
> > this case (i.e. don't unmap first partial page, unmap the rest,
> > partial truncate of first page, complete truncate of the rest)
> > without racing? Or do I need to write a variation of
> > invalidate_inode_pages2_range() to do this?
>
> umm, nothing I can immediately think of. Perhaps you can generalise
> vmtruncate_range() a bit?
I had a look at that - apart from being used for actually freeing disk
blocks as well (punching a hole in the file) - it requires locks that
we may or may not be able to grab and still has the problem of
separate calls to unmap_mapping_pages and truncate_inode_pages_range.
Unless I'm misunderstanding the purpose of vmtruncate_range() I
don't think it's the right API to be using because XFS only needs
to invalidate the page cache (hence my thoughts on a variant of
invalidate_inode_pages2_range being required).
Am I making sense, or do I need more coffe this morning?
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
