On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 01:26:38AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 10:18:23 +0100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > msync breakage is bad, but otherwise I don't know that we care about > > dirty page writeout efficiency. > > Well. We made so many changes to support the synchronous > dirty-the-page-when-we-dirty-the-pte thing that I'm rather doubtful that > the old-style approach still works. It might seem to, most of the time. > But if it _is_ subtly broken, boy it's going to take a long time for us to > find out.
I can't think of anything that should have caused breakage (except for the msync thing). We're still careful about not dropping pte dirty bits. > > But I think we discovered that those msync changes are bogus anyway > > becuase there is a small race window where pte could be dirtied without > > page being set dirty? > > Dunno, I don't recall that. We dirty the page before the pte... I don't think it isn't really that simple. There is a big comment in clear_page_dirty_for_io. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
