Re: [PATCH] VM: Fix the gfp_mask in invalidate_complete_page2

[Steve Dickson <SteveD@redhat.com>]

Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 08:18 -0400, Steve Dickson wrote:
>> Trond Myklebust wrote:
>>> No. Invalidatepage does precisely the wrong thing: it invalidates dirty
>>> data instead of committing it to disk. If you need to have the data
>>> invalidated, then you should call truncate_inode_pages().
>> Just curious... would it make sense to call truncate_inode_pages()
>> to purge the the readdir cache? Meaning, in nfs_revalidate_mapping()
>> truncate_inode_pages() would be called for S_ISDIR inodes?
> 
> Why? If, as in the case of an NFS directory, there are no dirty pages
> then the two are supposed to be 100% equivalent.
Well as you know, lately we've had problems with 
invalidate_inode_pages2() failing to invalidate pages (regardless of
their state). So I was thinking truncate_inode_pages() might be
better for directories since there seem to be more a guarantee that
the pages will be gone with truncate_inode_pages() than
invalidate_inode_pages2() (due to the fact there will not be any
dirty pages).

But since you have to call truncate_inode_pages under the
inode->i_mutex, there might be a performance hit...

steved.