[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090609121510.GB5589@localhost>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 20:15:10 +0800
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Cc: Nai Xia <nai.xia@...il.com>, Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
"hugh@...itas.com" <hugh@...itas.com>,
"riel@...hat.com" <riel@...hat.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"chris.mason@...cle.com" <chris.mason@...cle.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [13/16] HWPOISON: The high level memory error handler
in the VM v3
On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 06:48:25PM +0800, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 02:48:55PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:46:53PM +0800, Nai Xia wrote:
> > > I meant PG_writeback stops writers to index---->struct page mapping.
> >
> > It's protected by the radix tree RCU locks. Period.
> >
> > If you are referring to the reverse mapping: page->mapping is procted
> > by PG_lock. No one should make assumption that it won't change under
> > page writeback.
>
> Well... I think probably PG_writeback should be enough. Phrased another
> way: I think it is a very bad idea to truncate PG_writeback pages out of
> pagecache. Does anything actually do that?
There shall be no one. OK I will follow that convention..
But as I stated it is only safe do rely on the fact "no one truncates
PG_writeback pages" in end_writeback_io handlers. And I suspect if
there does exist such a handler, it could be trivially converted to
take the page lock.
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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