Andrew Morton wrote:
On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 00:45:50 -0800
Suleiman Souhlal <ssouhlal@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
akpm@osdl.org wrote:
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Accounting writes is fairly simple: whenever a process flips a page from clean
to dirty, we accuse it of having caused a write to underlying storage of
PAGE_CACHE_SIZE bytes.
On architectures where dirtying a page doesn't cause a page fault (like i386), couldn't you end up billing the wrong process (in fact, I think that even on other archituctures set_page_dirty() doesn't get called immediately in the page fault handler)?
Yes, that would be a problem in 2.6.18 and earlier.
In 2.6.19 and later, we do take a fault when transitioning a page from
pte-clean to pte-dirty. That was done to get the dirty-page accounting
right - to avoid the all-of-memory-is-dirty-but-the-kernel-doesn't-know-it
problem.
Ah yes indeed. I'm unable to keep up with all the new developments. :-(
However, if my understanding of this code is correct, it seems that the
page fault is only done for shared writable VMAs, so you still can't
rely on set_page_dirty() always being called by the process that
dirtied the page in the first place.
Am I wrong?
-- Suleiman
-
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/
[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]