linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/2] AFS: Implement shared-writable mmap

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <464A533B.8040507@yahoo.com.au>
Date:	Wed, 16 May 2007 10:41:31 +1000
From:	Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] AFS: Implement shared-writable mmap

Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2007 16:52:31 +0100
> David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>>Implement shared-writable mmap for AFS.
> 
> 
> This blows up in -mm:
> 
> fs/afs/file.c:59: error: 'filemap_nopage' undeclared here (not in a function)
> fs/afs/file.c:60: error: unknown field 'populate' specified in initializer
> fs/afs/file.c:60: error: 'filemap_populate' undeclared here (not in a function)
> 
> because Nick went and renamed half the VM and deleted the other half.

And page_mkwrite is next ;)


> I need to work out what to do with
> 
> mm-fix-fault-vs-invalidate-race-for-linear-mappings.patch
> mm-merge-populate-and-nopage-into-fault-fixes-nonlinear.patch
> mm-merge-populate-and-nopage-into-fault-fixes-nonlinear-doc-fix.patch
> mm-merge-populate-and-nopage-into-fault-fixes-nonlinear-fix.patch
> mm-merge-nopfn-into-fault.patch
> convert-hugetlbfs-to-use-vm_ops-fault.patch
> mm-remove-legacy-cruft.patch
> mm-debug-check-for-the-fault-vs-invalidate-race.patch
> mm-fix-clear_page_dirty_for_io-vs-fault-race.patch
> 
> Probably merge them, I guess.  Hugh had concerns, I think over small
> additional overhead from the lock_page()?

Yes he did. It seems to only be noticable in microbenchmarks. In my opinion
not enough to withhold pagecache corruption bug fixes.

Still, I have some lock_page speedup work that eliminates that regression
anyway.

However, Hugh hasn't exactly said yes or no yet...

-- 
SUSE Labs, Novell Inc.
-
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/