Re: [PATCH 08/11] nfs: disable data cache revalidation for swapfiles

[Mel Gorman]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 09:10:04AM -0400, Fred Isaman wrote:
> > <SNIP>
> > -static struct nfs_page *nfs_page_find_request_locked(struct page *page)
> > +static struct nfs_page *
> > +nfs_page_find_request_locked(struct nfs_inode *nfsi, struct page *page)
> >  {
> >        struct nfs_page *req = NULL;
> >
> > -       if (PagePrivate(page)) {
> > +       if (PagePrivate(page))
> >                req = (struct nfs_page *)page_private(page);
> > -               if (req != NULL)
> > -                       kref_get(&req->wb_kref);
> > +       else if (unlikely(PageSwapCache(page))) {
> > +               struct nfs_page *freq, *t;
> > +
> > +               /* Linearly search the commit list for the correct req */
> > +               list_for_each_entry_safe(freq, t, &nfsi->commit_list, wb_list) {
> > +                       if (freq->wb_page == page) {
> > +                               req = freq;
> > +                               break;
> > +                       }
> > +               }
> > +
> > +               BUG_ON(req == NULL);
> 
> I suspect I am missing something, but why is it guaranteed that the
> req is on the commit list?
> 

It's a fair question and a statement about what I expected to happen.
The commit list replaces the nfs_page_tree radix tree that used to exist
and my understanding was that the req would exist in the radix tree until
the swap IO was completed. I expected it to be the same for the commit
list and the BUG_ON was based on that expectation. Are there cases where
the req would not be found?

Thanks.

-- 
Mel Gorman
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/