On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 00:43 +1100, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Have you seen the new launder_page() a_op? called from > > invalidate_inode_pages2_range() > > It would have been nice to make that one into a more potentially > useful generic callback.
That can still be done when the need arises, right? > But why was it introduced, exactly? I can't tell from the code or > the discussion why NFS couldn't start the IO, and signal the caller > to wait_on_page_writeback and retry? That seemed to me like the > convetional fix. to quote a bit: On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 18:19:38 -0500 Trond Myklebust <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > NFS: Fix race in nfs_release_page() > > invalidate_inode_pages2() may set the dirty bit on a page owing to the > call > to unmap_mapping_range() after the page was locked. In order to fix this, > NFS has hooked the releasepage() method. This, however leads to deadlocks > in other parts of the VM. and: > > Now, arguably the VM shouldn't be calling try_to_release_page() with > > __GFP_FS when it's holding a lock on a page. > > > > But otoh, NFS should never be running lock_page() within nfs_release_page() > > against the page which was passed into nfs_release_page(). It'll deadlock > > for sure. > > The reason why it is happening is that the last dirty page from that > inode gets cleaned, resulting in a call to dput(). - 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/
