On Sat, 13 Oct 2007, Pekka Enberg wrote:
quoted text
> On 10/12/07, Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com> wrote:
> > But I keep suspecting that the answer might be the patch below (which
> > rather follows what drivers/block/rd.c is doing).  I'm especially
> > worried that, rather than just AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE being returned
> > to userspace, bad enough in itself, you might be liable to hit that
> > BUG_ON(page_mapped(page)).  shmem_writepage does not expect to be
> > called by anyone outside mm/vmscan.c, but unionfs can now get to it?
> 
> Doesn't msync(2) get to it via mm/page-writeback.c:write_cache_pages()
> without unionfs even?

I believe not.  Please do double-check my assertions, I've always found
the _writepages paths rather twisty; but my belief (supported by the
fact that we've not hit shmem_writepage's BUG_ON(page_mapped(page))
in five years) is that tmpfs/shmem opts out of all of that with its
	.capabilities	= BDI_CAP_NO_ACCT_DIRTY | BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK,
in shmem_backing_dev_info, which avoids all those _writepages avenues
(e.g. through bdi_cap_writeback_dirty tests), and write_cache_pages is
just a subfunction of the _writepages.

So, while I don't disagree with your patch to write_cache_pages (though
it wasn't clear to me whether it should break from or continue the loop
if it ever does meet an AOP_WRITEPAGE_ACTIVATE), I don't think that's
really the root of the problem.

Hugh
-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/