On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:26:38AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
quoted text
> On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:18:23 +0100 Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > 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.

I can't think of anything that should have caused breakage (except for
the msync thing). We're still careful about not dropping pte dirty bits.

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...

I don't think it isn't really that simple. There is a big comment in
clear_page_dirty_for_io.

-
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/