From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 10:36:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A030011.7040901@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1241692770-22547-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> ext4_get_blocks_wrap does a block lookup requesting to
> allocate new blocks. A lookup of blocks in prealloc area
> result in setting the unwritten flag in buffer_head. So
> a write to an unwritten extent will cause the buffer_head
> to have unwritten and mapped flag set. Clear hte unwritten
> buffer_head flag before requesting to allocate blocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index c3cd00f..f6d7e9b 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -1149,6 +1149,7 @@ int ext4_get_blocks_wrap(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, sector_t block,
> int retval;
>
> clear_buffer_mapped(bh);
> + clear_buffer_unwritten(bh);
>
> /*
> * Try to see if we can get the block without requesting
> @@ -1179,6 +1180,12 @@ int ext4_get_blocks_wrap(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, sector_t block,
> return retval;
>
> /*
> + * The above get_blocks can cause the buffer to be
> + * marked unwritten. So clear the same.
> + */
> + clear_buffer_unwritten(bh);
hm, thinking out loud here.
ext4_ext_get_blocks() will only set unwritten if (!create) ... but then
ext4_get_blocks_wrap() calls ext4_ext_get_blocks() !create as an
argument no matter what, the first time, for an initial lookup.
But if ext4_get_blocks_wrap() was called with !create, then we return
regardless, so ok - by the time you get to the above hunk, we -are- in
create mode, we're planning to write it ... so I guess clearing the
unwritten state makes sense here.
But is this too late, because it's after this?
/*
* Returns if the blocks have already allocated
*
* Note that if blocks have been preallocated
* ext4_ext_get_block() returns th create = 0
* with buffer head unmapped.
*/
if (retval > 0 && buffer_mapped(bh))
return retval;
I guess not; ext4_ext_get_blocks() won't map the buffer if it's found to
be preallocated/unwritten because it was called with !create. If we're
going on to write it, we want to clear unwritten.
So I guess this looks right, although I can't help but think that in
general, the buffer_head state management is really getting to be a
hard-to-follow mess...
-Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-07 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-07 10:39 [PATCH 1/3] ext4: Properly initialize the buffer_head state Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 10:39 ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 10:39 ` [PATCH 3/3] vfs: Add BUG_ON for delayed and unwritten extents in submit_bh Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 15:37 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-12 3:17 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12 4:52 ` [PATCH 3/3] vfs: Add BUG_ON for delayed and unwritten extentsin submit_bh Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-12 13:25 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-07 15:36 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2009-05-08 8:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-12 3:08 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12 4:46 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-13 18:56 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-13 22:28 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-14 6:00 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-14 5:40 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-14 13:14 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-07 15:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] ext4: Properly initialize the buffer_head state Eric Sandeen
2009-05-10 23:57 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-11 9:24 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-11 11:31 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-11 14:49 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-12 3:17 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12 4:47 ` 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=4A030011.7040901@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--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.