On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> However, a lot of the code isn't really amenable to it as it stands now.
> We very much tend to call it in critical sections, and you have to move
> them all out of the locks they are now.
It looks as if most code handling the dirty bits already uses the page
lock?
> "Artistic". Good word. That said, most of the code in there needs its own
> locks for other reasons (ie the reason __set_page_dirty_nobuffers() ends
> up taking the tree-lock is because of the radix tree bits, which can NOT
> be protected by per-page locks _anyway_).
According to the comments: Most callers of __set_page_dirty_nobuffers hold
the page lock. The only exception seems to be zap_pte_range where we
transfer the dirty information from the pte to the page. This is now much
rarer since the dirty mmap tracking patches make the fault handler deal
with it.
Still, the page dirtying in zap_pte_range remains a potential trouble spot
for the remaining cases in which we need to dirty pages there since it is
not rate limited. There is a potential cause for creating deadlocks
because too many pages were dirtied and the file system cannot allocate
enough memory for writeout.
-
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]