xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Review: fix mapping invalidation callouts

To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Review: fix mapping invalidation callouts
From: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2007 17:49:58 +1100
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@xxxxxxx>, xfs-dev@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <45A4A645.5010708@xxxxxxx>
References: <20070108040309.GX33919298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070110062344.GR33919298@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45A4A645.5010708@xxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 08:39:33AM +0000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 03:03:09PM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
> >
> >>With the recent cancel_dirty_page() changes, a warning was
> >>added if we cancel a dirty page that is still mapped into
> >>the page tables.
> >>This happens in XFS from fs_tosspages() and fs_flushinval_pages()
> >>because they call truncate_inode_pages().
> >>
> >>truncate_inode_pages() does not invalidate existing page mappings;
> >>it is expected taht this is called only when truncating the file
> >>or destroying the inode and on both these cases there can be
> >>no mapped ptes. However, we call this when doing direct I/O writes
> >>to remove pages from the page cache. As a result, we can rip
> >>a page from the page cache that still has mappings attached.
> >>
> >>The correct fix is to use invalidate_inode_pages2_range() instead
> >>of truncate_inode_pages(). They essentially do the same thing, but
> >>the former also removes any pte mappings before removing the page
> >>from the page cache.
> >>
> >>Comments?
> >>
> >>Cheers,
> >>
> >>Dave.
> >>-- 
> >>Dave Chinner
> >>Principal Engineer
> >>SGI Australian Software Group
> >>
> >>
> >>---
> >>fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_fs_subr.c |   10 ++++++++--
> >>1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_fs_subr.c
> >>===================================================================
> >>--- 2.6.x-xfs-new.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_fs_subr.c       2006-12-12 
> >>12:05:17.000000000 +1100
> >>+++ 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_fs_subr.c    2007-01-08 
> >>09:30:22.056571711 +1100
> >>@@ -21,6 +21,8 @@ int  fs_noerr(void) { return 0; }
> >>int  fs_nosys(void) { return ENOSYS; }
> >>void fs_noval(void) { return; }
> >>
> >>+#define XFS_OFF_TO_PCSIZE(off)     \
> >>+   (((off) + PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - 1) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT)
> >
> >
> >I don't think this is right.
> >
> >Assuming 4k page size, first = 2k, last = 6k will result in
> >invalidating page indexes 1 and 2 i.e. offset 4k -> 12k. In fact,
> >we want to invalidate pages 0 and 1.
> >
> >IOWs, I think it should be:
> >
> >+#define XFS_OFF_TO_PCINDEX(off)     ((off) >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT)
> >
> >Comments?
> >
> 
> Makes sense to me.

Yeah, you'd think so. The first xfsqa run I do -after- checking it in
(been running for 24 hours) I get a stack dump with the warning
in cancel_dirty_page(), so clearly this isn't right either. I'm
not sure WTF is going on here.

Chatz, don't push that mod yet....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>