[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56E82B18.9040807@nod.at>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:32:40 +0100
From: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com>,
Maxime Ripard <maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com>,
David Gstir <david@...ma-star.at>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Alexander Kaplan <alex@...tthing.co>
Subject: Re: Page migration issue with UBIFS
Am 15.03.2016 um 16:17 schrieb Kirill A. Shutemov:
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 03:16:11PM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> We're facing this issue from 2014 on UBIFS:
>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg79941.html
>>
>> So sum up:
>> UBIFS does not allow pages directly marked as dirty. It want's everyone to do it via UBIFS's
>> ->wirte_end() and ->page_mkwirte() functions.
>> This assumption *seems* to be violated by CMA which migrates pages.
>
> I don't thing the CMA/migration is the root cause.
>
> How did we end up with writable and dirty pte, but not having
> ->page_mkwrite() called for the page?
>
> Or if ->page_mkwrite() was called, why the page is not dirty?
BTW: UBIFS does not implement ->migratepage(), could this be a problem?
Thanks,
//richard
Powered by blists - more mailing lists