On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:18:23 +0100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:

quoted text
> On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:07:56AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Wed, 07 Mar 2007 09:51:57 +0100 Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
> > 
> > > > > Dirty page accounting doesn't work either on
> > > > > non-linear mappings
> > > > 
> > > > It doesn't?  Confused - these things don't have anything to do with each
> > > > other do they?
> > > 
> > > Look in page_mkclean().  Where does it handle non-linear mappings?
> > > 
> > 
> > OK, I'd forgotten about that.  It won't break dirty memory accounting,
> > but it'll potentially break dirty memory balancing.
> > 
> > If we have the wrong page (due to nonlinear), page_check_address() will
> > fail and we'll leave the pte dirty.  That puts us back to the pre-2.6.17
> > algorithms and I guess it'll break the msync guarantees.
> > 
> > Peter, I thought we went through the nonlinear problem ages ago and decided
> > it was OK?
> 
> msync breakage is bad, but otherwise I don't know that we care about
> dirty page writeout efficiency.

Well.  We made so many changes to support the synchronous
dirty-the-page-when-we-dirty-the-pte thing that I'm rather doubtful that
the old-style approach still works.  It might seem to, most of the time. 
But if it _is_ subtly broken, boy it's going to take a long time for us to
find out.

quoted text
> But I think we discovered that those msync changes are bogus anyway
> becuase there is a small race window where pte could be dirtied without
> page being set dirty?

Dunno, I don't recall that.  We dirty the page before the pte...
-
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/