[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:22:57 -0400
From: Steve Dickson <SteveD@...hat.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
CC: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] VM: Fix the gfp_mask in invalidate_complete_page2
Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 08:18 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> No. Invalidatepage does precisely the wrong thing: it invalidates dirty
>>> data instead of committing it to disk. If you need to have the data
>>> invalidated, then you should call truncate_inode_pages().
>> Just curious... would it make sense to call truncate_inode_pages()
>> to purge the the readdir cache? Meaning, in nfs_revalidate_mapping()
>> truncate_inode_pages() would be called for S_ISDIR inodes?
>
> Why? If, as in the case of an NFS directory, there are no dirty pages
> then the two are supposed to be 100% equivalent.
Well as you know, lately we've had problems with
invalidate_inode_pages2() failing to invalidate pages (regardless of
their state). So I was thinking truncate_inode_pages() might be
better for directories since there seem to be more a guarantee that
the pages will be gone with truncate_inode_pages() than
invalidate_inode_pages2() (due to the fact there will not be any
dirty pages).
But since you have to call truncate_inode_pages under the
inode->i_mutex, there might be a performance hit...
steved.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists