On Thu, 24 May 2007 23:34:33 +0100
David Howells <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > So my reason for asking the above is to try to find a way to make all these
> > new PG-error games just go away.
>
> Yeah. However, there needs to be something to cover the gap between releasing
> PG_writeback and getting PG_lock. They have to be done in that order to avoid
> deadlocking against truncate and other stuff, but that leaves a window in which
> the page appears to be in a good state - one in which prepare_write() or
> page_mkwrite() can potentially leak through.
hm. I don't see why that race window would be a problem in practice: the
page-exciser does a lock_page();wait_on_page_writeback() as normal, then
proceeds with its business?
But given that this doesn't work right for some reason, can we use PG_error
and then handle that appropriately in the filesystem's ->prepare_write() and
->page_mkwrite()?
> Nick Piggin talked about using an extra lock, but as far as I can tell, that
> just compounds the deadlock problems.
>
> I suppose I could leave something in page->private that indicated that the
> page was defunct, but that'd have to be done by the filesystem, probably
> before calling cancel_rejected_write().
Well, using PG_error is OK and appropriate for that if it's localised to
the fs. But I'd be a bit worried about requiring that the VFS maintain
some special protocol for it, partly because it would be such a
rarely-tested thing.
-
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]