Re: [PATCH] shmem missing cache flush

From: Hugh Dickins (
Date: Wed Oct 16 2002 - 18:57:30 EST

On Wed, 16 Oct 2002, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> Really, this should be a clear_user_page(), but we can't reasonable get
> a user address all the way down to it, so let's just flush it instead.
> Note that 2.4 needs an equivalent fix.
> diff -urpNX build-tools/dontdiff linus-2.5/mm/shmem.c parisc-2.5/mm/shmem.c
> --- linus-2.5/mm/shmem.c Tue Oct 8 10:54:20 2002
> +++ parisc-2.5/mm/shmem.c Tue Oct 8 16:49:24 2002
> @@ -848,6 +848,7 @@ repeat:
> info->alloced++;
> spin_unlock(&info->lock);
> clear_highpage(page);
> + flush_dcache_page(page);
> SetPageUptodate(page);
> }

I expect you're right - even though that page is not yet mapped into
any user address space? I'm currently preparing a shmem.c patch set
to send Andrew in the next day or two, so I'll factor that in too.

I would be much happier about adding it, if you could tell me that
I can then remove the flush_page_to_ram(page) from shmem_nopage?

But suspect you won't grant me that: notice that 2.4.18 and 2.5.3
added flush_dcache_page in addition to flush_page_to_ram in
memclear_highpage_flush, which I'll take as definitive.

To x86ers, flush_page_to_ram, flush_dcache_page, flush_icache_page
etc. all seem like forlorn prayers to different gods, "Please, let
my data be seen by the user". Documentation/cachetlb.txt has for
a long time told us that flush_page_to_ram (sacrifice ram to page
god) is now deprecated, the new religion is flush_dcache_page,
and flush_icache_page can soon be forgotten. But they're all
still there to confuse us; and it seems that years can go by
without the high priests noticing where these prayers are needed.

In view of which, I don't expect to be rushing a 2.4.20 fix to
Marcelo: let it ride until 2.4.21, okay?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:30 EST