[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56FE49CD.1000302@suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 12:13:33 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, boris.brezillon@...e-electrons.com,
maxime.ripard@...e-electrons.com, david@...ma-star.at,
david@...morbit.com, dedekind1@...il.com, alex@...tthing.co,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, sasha.levin@...cle.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, rvaswani@...eaurora.org,
tony.luck@...el.com, shailendra.capricorn@...il.com,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, hch@...radead.org,
hughd@...gle.com, mgorman@...hsingularity.net
Subject: Re: UBIFS and page migration (take 2)
On 03/31/2016 11:58 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> During page migrations UBIFS gets confused. We triggered this by using CMA
> on two different targets.
> It turned out that fallback_migrate_page() is not suitable for UBIFS as it
> does not copy the PagePrivate flag.
> UBIFS is using this flag among with PageChecked to account free space.
> One possible solution is implementing a ->migratepage() function in UBIFS
> which does more or less the same as fallback_migrate_page() but also
> copies PagePrivate. I'm not at all sure whether this is they way to go.
> IMHO either page migration should not happen if ->migratepage() is not implement
> or fallback_migrate_page() has to work for all filesystems.
Yes, we could document more thoroughly the expectations of
fallback_migrate_page() and audit the existing users, but still relying on every
new address_space_operations instance to verify them isn't without risk. And I
doubt there can be a default fallback that's guaranteed safe for all filesystems.
> Comments? Flames? :-)
>
> Thanks,
> //richard
>
> [PATCH 1/2] mm: Export migrate_page_move_mapping and
> [PATCH 2/2] UBIFS: Implement ->migratepage()
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists