On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 16:17 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 02, 2007 at 02:48:04PM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 15:20 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > OK, but then hasn't the patch just made the deadlock harder to hit,
> > > or is there some invariant that says that readpage() will never be
> > > invoked if gc was invoked on the same page as we're commit_write()ing?
> >
> > > The Q/A comments aren't very sure about this. I guess from the look
> > > of it, prepare_write/commit_write make sure the page will be uptodate
> > > by the start of commit_write,
> >
> > That's the intention, yes.
> >
> > > and you avoid GCing the page in
> > > prepare_write because your new page won't have any nodes allocated
> > > yet that can possibly be GCed?
> >
> > We _might_ GC the page -- it might not be a new page; we might be
> > overwriting it. But it's fine if we do. Actually it's slightly
> > suboptimal because we'll write out the same data twice -- once in GC and
> > then immediately afterward in the write which we were making space for.
>
> But doesn't GC only happen in prepare_write in the case that the
> i_size is being extended into a new page?
Ah, yes. I was thinking of commit_write, and it had temporarily escaped
my notice that we also write in prepare_write, to extend the file.
So yes, you're probably right that it doesn't matter; in any GC
triggered from _prepare_write_ we avoid GCing the page in question
because it by definition doesn't exist.
--
dwmw2
-
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]
