On Mon, Oct 30, 2000 at 03:34:44PM -0500, Alexander Viro wrote:
> Unfortunately, it doesn't fix the thing. ->sync_page() is called ...
> Minimal patch (against -pre7) follows. It still leaves sync_page() problem
> open - any suggestions on that one are very welcome. ...
I needed to patch your p
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Fine with me. Just let's remember that it should be revisited in 2.5.
> What about filemap_swapout()? If you agree with checking ->mapping
> there... looks like we are done with that crap for the time being.
Yup, I agree. I already applied your pa
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, sync_page() looks like a broken design, but I suspect that for
> expediency the simplest fix is to just make the NFS sync_page() (re-)check
> for "mapping == NULL", and let it be at that. Avoid the NULL pointer
> dereference (very small window al
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> [ sync_page brokenness ]
>
> To elaborate: the thing is called if we get a contention on the page lock.
Ok, sync_page() looks like a broken design, but I suspect that for
expediency the simplest fix is to just make the NFS sync_page() (re-)check
f
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> > I didn't actually miss it, I just looked at the users and decided that it
> > looks like they should never have this issue. But I might have missed
> > something. As far as I can tell, "read_cache_page()" is only used for
> > meta-data like thing
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> The last one is in deactivate_page_nolock() - there we check the
> ->mapping without pagecache_lock and without page lock. Hell
> knows whether it's a bug or not. Rik?
Shouldn't be a problem, since we'll have the lock at a time
we actually /do/ someth
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>
> > How about just changing ->sync_page() semantics to own the page lock? That
> > sound slike the right thing anyway, no?
>
> It would kill the ->sync_page(), but yes, _that_ might be the right th
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> How about just changing ->sync_page() semantics to own the page lock? That
> sound slike the right thing anyway, no?
It would kill the ->sync_page(), but yes, _that_ might be the right thing ;-)
> I didn't actually miss it, I just looked at the use
On Mon, 30 Oct 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't fix the thing. ->sync_page() is called when we
> do not own the page lock and nfs_sync_page() uses page->mapping. Yes, we
> check it before calling the bloody thing, but we don't own the lock.
Good catch.
> Problem only
9 matches
Mail list logo
