Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Ok, pre-5 should have all the same places you found already fixed, but
> please do give it some heavy-duty testing to make sure there isn't
> anything hidden..
I've beaten on it fairly heavily with the BUG in there as you suggested,
with no problems.
This kernel even
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
>
> OK, I see you just posted -pre5 while I was making the patch, but here
> it is anyway, as a cross-check.
Ok, pre-5 should have all the same places you found already fixed, but
please do give it some heavy-duty testing to make sure there isn't
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> We don't want to lose dirty bits by mistake. The only cases where it's ok
> to clear the dirty bit is when we truncate a page completely (so it won't
> be needed and obviously really shouldn't be written out) and when we've
> lost the last user of a swap cache entry.
>
>
Linus Torvalds wrote:
> No, I'd much rather have
>
> if (PageDirty(page)) BUG();
>
> there, and then have the free_swap_cache code clear the dirty bit.
>
> We don't want to lose dirty bits by mistake. The only cases where it's ok
> to clear the dirty bit is when we truncate a page
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
> [in vmscan.c]
> > Between line 573 and 594 the page can have 1 user and be unlocked, so it
> > can be removed by invalidate_inode_pages, and the mapping will be
> > cleared here:
> >
[in vmscan.c]
> Between line 573 and 594 the page can have 1 user and be unlocked, so it
> can be removed by invalidate_inode_pages, and the mapping will be
> cleared here:
> http://innominate.org/~graichen/projects/lxr/source/mm/filemap.c?v=v2.3#L98
This seems like the obvious thing to do:
---
[in vmscan.c]
Between line 573 and 594 the page can have 1 user and be unlocked, so it
can be removed by invalidate_inode_pages, and the mapping will be
cleared here:
http://innominate.org/~graichen/projects/lxr/source/mm/filemap.c?v=v2.3#L98
This seems like the obvious thing to do:
---
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
[in vmscan.c]
Between line 573 and 594 the page can have 1 user and be unlocked, so it
can be removed by invalidate_inode_pages, and the mapping will be
cleared here:
Linus Torvalds wrote:
No, I'd much rather have
if (PageDirty(page)) BUG();
there, and then have the free_swap_cache code clear the dirty bit.
We don't want to lose dirty bits by mistake. The only cases where it's ok
to clear the dirty bit is when we truncate a page completely
Linus Torvalds wrote:
We don't want to lose dirty bits by mistake. The only cases where it's ok
to clear the dirty bit is when we truncate a page completely (so it won't
be needed and obviously really shouldn't be written out) and when we've
lost the last user of a swap cache entry.
Any
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000, Daniel Phillips wrote:
OK, I see you just posted -pre5 while I was making the patch, but here
it is anyway, as a cross-check.
Ok, pre-5 should have all the same places you found already fixed, but
please do give it some heavy-duty testing to make sure there isn't
11 matches
Mail list logo
