[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612280912071.4473@woody.osdl.org>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:15:39 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: "Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>
cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, ranma@...edrich.de,
gordonfarquharson@...il.com, tbm@...ius.com,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>, andrei.popa@...eo.ro,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>, hugh@...itas.com,
nickpiggin@...oo.com.au, arjan@...radead.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix page_mkclean_one
On Thu, 28 Dec 2006, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
>
> The test program is a process to write/read data. pdflush might write data
> to disk asynchronously. After pdflush writes a page to disk, it will call (either by
> softirq) clear_page_dirty to clear the dirty bit after getting the interrupt
> notification.
That would indeed be a horrible bug. However, we don't do
"clear_page_dirty()" _after_ the IO has completed, we do it _before_ the
IO starts.
If you can actually find a place that does clear_page_dirty _after_ IO,
then yes, you've just found the bug. But I haven't found it.
So the rule is _always_:
- call "clear_page_dirty_for_io()" with the page lock held, and _before_
the IO starts.
- do "set_page_writeback()" before unlocking the page again
- do a "end_page_writeback()" when the IO actually finishes.
and any code sequence that doesn't honor those rules would be buggy. A
beer for anybody that finds it..
Linus
-
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