On Wed, 7 Mar 2007 07:57:27 +0100 Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Why was truncate_inode_pages_range() altered to unmap the page if it got > > mapped again? > > > > Oh. Because the unmap_mapping_range() call got removed from vmtruncate(). > > Why? (Please send suitable updates to the changelog). > > We have to ensure it is unmapped, and be prepared to unmap it while under > the page lock. But vmtruncate() dropped i_size, so nobody will map this page into pagetables from then on. > > I guess truncate of a mmapped area isn't sufficiently common to worry about > > the inefficiency of this change. > > Yeah, and it should be more efficient for files that aren't mmapped, > because we don't have to take i_mmap_lock for them. > > > Lots of memory barriers got removed in memory.c, unchangeloggedly. > > Yeah they were all for the lockless truncate_count checks. Now that > we use the page lock, we don't need barriers. > > > Gratuitous renaming of locals in do_no_page() makes the change hard to > > review. Should have been a separate patch. > > > > In fact, the patch would have been heaps clearer if that renaming had been > > a separate patch. > > Shall I? If you don't have anything better to do, yes please ;) - 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/