From: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
To: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>
Cc: xfs-dev@sgi.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Review: fix mapping invalidation callouts
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2007 08:39:33 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <45A4A645.5010708@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070110062344.GR33919298@melbourne.sgi.com>
David Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:03:09PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
>
>>With the recent cancel_dirty_page() changes, a warning was
>>added if we cancel a dirty page that is still mapped into
>>the page tables.
>>This happens in XFS from fs_tosspages() and fs_flushinval_pages()
>>because they call truncate_inode_pages().
>>
>>truncate_inode_pages() does not invalidate existing page mappings;
>>it is expected taht this is called only when truncating the file
>>or destroying the inode and on both these cases there can be
>>no mapped ptes. However, we call this when doing direct I/O writes
>>to remove pages from the page cache. As a result, we can rip
>>a page from the page cache that still has mappings attached.
>>
>>The correct fix is to use invalidate_inode_pages2_range() instead
>>of truncate_inode_pages(). They essentially do the same thing, but
>>the former also removes any pte mappings before removing the page
>>from the page cache.
>>
>>Comments?
>>
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Dave.
>>--
>>Dave Chinner
>>Principal Engineer
>>SGI Australian Software Group
>>
>>
>>---
>> fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_fs_subr.c | 10 ++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>>Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_fs_subr.c
>>===================================================================
>>--- 2.6.x-xfs-new.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_fs_subr.c 2006-12-12 12:05:17.000000000 +1100
>>+++ 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_fs_subr.c 2007-01-08 09:30:22.056571711 +1100
>>@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ int fs_noerr(void) { return 0; }
>> int fs_nosys(void) { return ENOSYS; }
>> void fs_noval(void) { return; }
>>
>>+#define XFS_OFF_TO_PCSIZE(off) \
>>+ (((off) + PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT)
>
>
> I don't think this is right.
>
> Assuming 4k page size, first = 2k, last = 6k will result in
> invalidating page indexes 1 and 2 i.e. offset 4k -> 12k. In fact,
> we want to invalidate pages 0 and 1.
>
> IOWs, I think it should be:
>
> +#define XFS_OFF_TO_PCINDEX(off) ((off) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT)
>
> Comments?
>
Makes sense to me.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-10 8:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-08 4:03 Review: fix mapping invalidation callouts David Chinner
2007-01-08 9:09 ` Christoph Hellwig
2007-01-08 23:04 ` David Chinner
2007-01-09 11:57 ` Lachlan McIlroy
2007-01-10 0:10 ` David Chinner
2007-01-10 6:23 ` David Chinner
2007-01-10 8:39 ` Lachlan McIlroy [this message]
2007-01-11 6:49 ` David Chinner
2007-01-11 8:00 ` David Chinner
2007-01-11 8:01 ` David Chatterton
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=45A4A645.5010708@sgi.com \
--to=lachlan@sgi.com \
--cc=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=xfs-dev@sgi.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox