[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020710141009xbc5bb71w64e8288f364ab491@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Oct 2007 20:09:34 +0300
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Hugh Dickins" <hugh@...itas.com>
Cc: "Ryan Finnie" <ryan@...nie.org>,
"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Erez Zadok" <ezk@...sunysb.edu>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, cjwatson@...ntu.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: msync(2) bug(?), returns AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE to userland
Hi Hugh,
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> Doesn't msync(2) get to it via mm/page-writeback.c:write_cache_pages()
> without unionfs even?
On 10/14/07, Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com> wrote:
> I believe not. Please do double-check my assertions, I've always found
> the _writepages paths rather twisty; but my belief (supported by the
> fact that we've not hit shmem_writepage's BUG_ON(page_mapped(page))
> in five years) is that tmpfs/shmem opts out of all of that with its
> .capabilities = BDI_CAP_NO_ACCT_DIRTY | BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK,
> in shmem_backing_dev_info, which avoids all those _writepages avenues
> (e.g. through bdi_cap_writeback_dirty tests), and write_cache_pages is
> just a subfunction of the _writepages.
Thanks for the explanation, you're obviously correct.
However, I don't think the mapping_cap_writeback_dirty() check in
__filemap_fdatawrite_range() works as expected when tmpfs is a lower
mount for an unionfs mount. There's no BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK capability
for unionfs mappings so do_fsync() will call write_cache_pages() that
unconditionally invokes shmem_writepage() via unionfs_writepage().
Unless, of course, there's some other unionfs magic I am missing.
Pekka
-
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