From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, sandeen@redhat.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Rework the ext4_da_writepages
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 09:36:40 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080801040640.GA25255@skywalker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080801030825.GD8736@mit.edu>
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:08:25PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 11:03:25PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > With the below changes we reserve credit needed to insert only one extent
> > resulting from a call to single get_block. That make sure we don't take
> > too much journal credits during writeout. We also don't limit the pages
> > to write. That means we loop through the dirty pages building largest
> > possible contiguous block request. Then we issue a single get_block request.
> > We may get less block that we requested. If so we would end up not mapping
> > some of the buffer_heads. That means those buffer_heads are still marked delay.
> > Later in the writepage callback via __mpage_writepage we redirty those pages.
>
> If you're only redirtying the pages in the callback, that means they
> are left clean but with the delayed flag set; is that going to be
> enough to keep the mm from dropping the pages because they are clean?
> Or is the mechanism which prevents this is that you've kept the
> refcount on the pages bumped until after the callback?
writepages can use redirty_page_for_writepage to skip the pages during
writeout. We do that in most of the writepage call backs.
So I guess they would be properly marked dirty .
-aneesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-01 4:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-31 17:33 [PATCH] ext4: Rework the ext4_da_writepages Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-07-31 17:47 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-07-31 20:10 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-08-01 4:54 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-08-01 5:07 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-08-01 3:08 ` Theodore Tso
2008-08-01 4:06 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-08-11 10:01 [PATCH] ext4: Handle unwritten extent properly with delayed allocation Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-08-11 10:01 ` [PATCH] ext4: Rework the ext4_da_writepages Aneesh Kumar K.V
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20080801040640.GA25255@skywalker \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.