On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> So we should probably do a "wait_for_page()" in do_no_page()?
>
> Or maybe only do it for write accesses (since we don't really care about
> getting mapped readably)? If so, we need to do it in the write case of
> do_no_page() _and_ in the do_wp_page() case. Hmm?
I think we discussed doing exactly this at some earlier time, actually,
just to try to throttle people who do lots of page dirtying.
Maybe we even do it somewhere, but I tried to see it, and in the normal
"nopage()" routine we very much try to _avoid_ locking the page (ie if
it's marked PageUptodate() we'll return it whether locked or not). Which
is fine - especially for readers, there really isn't any reason to ever
delay them getting access to a page just because it's locked for write-out
or something (once it's mapped, they'll have access to it regardless of
any locked state in the kernel anyway).
So I don't actually see any serialization at all that would keep a random
page from being paged back in.
Linus
-
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]
