On Tuesday 10 September 2002 00:03, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Daniel Phillips wrote:
> >
> > > I'm very unkeen about using the inaccurate invalidate_inode_pages
> > > for anything which matters, really. And the consistency of pagecache
> > > data matters.
> > >
> > > NFS should be using something stronger. And that's basically
> > > vmtruncate() without the i_size manipulation.
> >
> > Yes, that looks good. Semantics are basically "and don't come back
> > until every damm page is gone" which is enforced by the requirement
> > that we hold the mapping->page_lock though one entire scan of the
> > truncated region. (Yes, I remember sweating this one out a year
> > or two ago so it doesn't eat 100% CPU on regular occasions.)
> >
> > So, specifically, we want:
> >
> > void invalidate_inode_pages(struct inode *inode)
> > {
> > truncate_inode_pages(mapping, 0);
> > }
> >
> > Is it any harder than that?
>
> Pretty much - need to leave i_size where it was.
This doesn't touch i_size.
> But there are
> apparently reasons why NFS cannot sleepingly lock pages in this particular
> context.
If only we knew what those were. It's hard to keep the word 'bogosity'
from popping into my head.
-- Daniel - 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Sep 15 2002 - 22:00:19 EST