[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <713141.1588775072@warthog.procyon.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 06 May 2020 15:24:32 +0100
From: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: dhowells@...hat.com, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@...merspace.com>,
Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>,
Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 54/61] afs: Wait on PG_fscache before modifying/releasing a page
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
> > Won't that screw up ITER_MAPPING? Does that mean that ITER_MAPPING isn't
> > viable?
>
> Can you remind me why ITER_MAPPING needs:
>
> "The caller must guarantee that the pages are all present and they must be
> locked using PG_locked, PG_writeback or PG_fscache to prevent them from
> going away or being migrated whilst they're being accessed."
>
> An elevated refcount prevents migration, and it also prevents the pages
> from being freed. It doesn't prevent them from being truncated out of
> the file, but it does ensure the pages aren't reallocated.
ITER_MAPPING relies on the mapping to maintain the pointers to the pages so
that it can find them rather than being like ITER_BVEC where there's a
separate list.
Truncate removes the pages from the mapping - at which point ITER_MAPPING can
no longer find them.
David
Powered by blists - more mailing lists