linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] writeback: introduce the pageout work

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: <20120301132215.71246044.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 1 Mar 2012 13:22:15 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] writeback: introduce the pageout work

On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 22:15:51 +0100
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:

> On Thu 01-03-12 11:42:01, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 1 Mar 2012 12:04:04 +0100
> > Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> > 
> > > > iirc, the way I "grabbed" the page was to actually lock it, with
> > > > [try_]_lock_page().  And unlock it again way over within the writeback
> > > > thread.  I forget why I did it this way, rather than get_page() or
> > > > whatever.  Locking the page is a good way of preventing anyone else
> > > > from futzing with it.  It also pins the inode, which perhaps meant that
> > > > with careful management, I could avoid the igrab()/iput() horrors
> > > > discussed above.
> > >
> > >   I think using get_page() might be a good way to go.
> > 
> > get_page() doesn't pin the inode - truncate() will still detach it
> > from the address_space().
>   Yes, I know. And exactly because of that I'd like to use it. Flusher
> thread would lock the page from the work item, check whether it is still
> attached to the inode and if yes, it will proceed. Otherwise it will just
> discard the work item because we know the page has already been written out
> by someone else or truncated.

That would work OK.  The vmscanning process won't know that its
writeback effort failed, but it's hard to see how that could cause a
problem.

--
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/