Re: [PATCH] VM: Fix the gfp_mask in invalidate_complete_page2

[Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>]

On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 13:49 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com> wrote:
> 
> > No. Invalidatepage does precisely the wrong thing: it invalidates dirty
> > data instead of committing it to disk. If you need to have the data
> > invalidated, then you should call truncate_inode_pages().
> 
> Hmmm... Good point, but you still need to handle try_to_release_page() failing,
> but that only means checking the return value of invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> (which you don't do, I notice).  Or is it defined that if must succeed if
> __GFP_WAIT is set?

The only way for it to fail if __GFP_IO is set, is if someone kills the
process.
Note that since the NFS client itself will flush out all dirty data to
disk prior to calling invalidate_inode_pages2, the only thing we're
trying to do here is to avoid races while invalidating those pages.

> With the two-phase thing, I think I'm thinking of the wrong portion of that
> file (I'm thinking of truncate_inode_pages_range()).
> 
> Should invalidate_inode_pages2_range() take a gfp_t argument to pass on down?

Maybe. Do any of the current callers care? NFS should be quite happy
with the patch that is currently in Andrew's tree.

  Trond
-
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/