On Sun, 17 Dec 2006, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> So we should probably do a "wait_for_page()" in do_no_page()?
> 
> Or maybe only do it for write accesses (since we don't really care about 
> getting mapped readably)? If so, we need to do it in the write case of 
> do_no_page() _and_ in the do_wp_page() case. Hmm?

I think we discussed doing exactly this at some earlier time, actually, 
just to try to throttle people who do lots of page dirtying. 

Maybe we even do it somewhere, but I tried to see it, and in the normal 
"nopage()" routine we very much try to _avoid_ locking the page (ie if 
it's marked PageUptodate() we'll return it whether locked or not). Which 
is fine - especially for readers, there really isn't any reason to ever 
delay them getting access to a page just because it's locked for write-out 
or something (once it's mapped, they'll have access to it regardless of 
any locked state in the kernel anyway).

So I don't actually see any serialization at all that would keep a random 
page from being paged back in.

                Linus
-
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/

Reply via email to