[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180709200049.GA5335@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2018 13:00:49 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, john.hubbard@...il.com,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] mm/fs: put_user_page() proposal
On Mon, Jul 09, 2018 at 09:47:40PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 09-07-18 10:16:51, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > 2) What to do when some page is pinned but we need to do e.g.
> > > clear_page_dirty_for_io(). After some more thinking I agree with you that
> > > just blocking waiting for page to unpin will create deadlocks like:
> >
> > Why are we trying to writeback a page that is pinned? It's presumed to
> > be continuously redirtied by its pinner. We can't evict it.
>
> So what should be a result of fsync(file), where some 'file' pages are
> pinned e.g. by running direct IO? If we just skip those pages, we'll lie to
> userspace that data was committed while it was not (and it's not only about
> data that has landed in those pages via DMA, you can have first 1k of a page
> modified by normal IO in parallel to DMA modifying second 1k chunk). If
> fsync(2) returns error, it would be really unexpected by userspace and most
> apps will just not handle that correctly. So what else can you do than
> block?
I was thinking about writeback, and neglected the fsync case. For fsync,
we could copy the "current" contents of the page to a freshly-allocated
page and write _that_ to disc? As long as we redirty the real page after
the pin is dropped, I think we're fine.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists