DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=aTJUuEuT6hV2XQICcaTdiNQLYJFvxEPwvz+G39eQdgZwZ2OOLB55mr8JLiUtoeHXNHubsc3+xEHYwzqpclMyMnl7CwBia0FDq+adDc2T5hkSsokmSkPwKUBvGMLWKUisnWUzFDClL/rfs0aj8dmfjor5RvhACJ8Mn5t76oEDKn8=
Message-ID: <4df4ef0c0801100756v2a536cc5xa80d9d1cfdae073a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:56:07 +0300
From: "Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@gmail.com>
To: "Rik van Riel" <riel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC][BUG] updating the ctime and mtime time stamps in msync()
Cc: "Jakob Oestergaard" <jakob@unthought.net>, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20080110104543.398baf5c@bree.surriel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <1199728459.26463.11.camel@codedot>
	 <20080109155015.4d2d4c1d@cuia.boston.redhat.com>
	 <26932.1199912777@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
	 <20080109170633.292644dc@cuia.boston.redhat.com>
	 <20080109223340.GH25527@unthought.net>
	 <20080109184141.287189b8@bree.surriel.com>
	 <4df4ef0c0801091603y2bf507e1q2b99971c6028d1f3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080110085120.GK25527@unthought.net>
	 <4df4ef0c0801100253m6c08e4a3t917959c030533f80@mail.gmail.com>
	 <20080110104543.398baf5c@bree.surriel.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2092
Lines: 56

2008/1/10, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>:
> On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 13:53:59 +0300
> "Anton Salikhmetov" <salikhmetov@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Indeed, if msync() is called with MS_SYNC an explicit sync is
> > triggered, and Rik's suggestion would work. However, the POSIX
> > standard requires a call to msync() with MS_ASYNC to update the
> > st_ctime and st_mtime stamps too. No explicit sync of the inode data
> > is triggered in the current implementation of msync(). Hence Rik's
> > suggestion would fail to satisfy POSIX in the latter case.
>
> Since your patch is already changing msync(), has it occurred
> to you that your patch could change msync() to do the right
> thing?

No, not quite. Peter Staubach mentioned an issue in my solution:

>>>

> The patch adds a call to the file_update_time() function to change
> the file metadata before syncing. The patch also contains
> substantial code cleanup: consolidated error check
> for function parameters, using the PAGE_ALIGN() macro instead of
> "manual" alignment check, improved readability of the loop,
> which traverses the process memory regions, updated comments.
>
>

These changes catch the simple case, where the file is mmap'd,
modified via the mmap'd region, and then an msync is done,
all on a mostly quiet system.

However, I don't see how they will work if there has been
something like a sync(2) done after the mmap'd region is
modified and the msync call.  When the inode is written out
as part of the sync process, I_DIRTY_PAGES will be cleared,
thus causing a miss in this code.

The I_DIRTY_PAGES check here is good, but I think that there
needs to be some code elsewhere too, to catch the case where
I_DIRTY_PAGES is being cleared, but the time fields still need
to be updated.

<<<

So I'm working on my next solution for this bug now.

>
> --
> All rights reversed.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/