From: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Need clear buffer_delay after page writeout for delayed allocation
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2008 00:04:07 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1212390247.4368.107.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080602063519.GA26379@skywalker>
On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 12:05 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 10:38:35PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 09:39 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 08:50:32PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2008-06-02 at 08:44 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, Jun 01, 2008 at 02:10:02PM -0700, Mingming Cao wrote:
> > > > > > ext4: Need clear buffer_delay after page writeout for delayed allocation
> > > > > >
> > > > > > From: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Need clear buffer_delay in ext4_da_writepage() after page has been writeout
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@us.ibm.com>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > We do that in mpage_put_bnr_to_bhs.
> > > > >
> > > > Normally delayed buffer could be cleared in that case, but if allocation
> > > > failed in __mapge_da_writepages(), it will keep buffer_delay marked and
> > > > deferring to later ext4_da_writepage() to do block allocation. This
> > > > patch handles clear bh delay bit in this case.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why not do it in ext4_da_get_block_write then.
> >
> > The buffer head passed to ext4_da_get_block_write() calling from
> > mpage_da_map_blocks is a dummy one, to store the allocated extent, not
> > the bh that need map.
>
>
> ie true when ext4_da_get_block_write is called via writepages. In
> that case mpage_put_bnr_to_bhs clears the delay bit properly. How about
> the changes below.
>
I see your patch below is trying to address how to detect and assign
blocks with your suggestion(i.e clear delayed bit in get_block). But I
don;t think it's needed.
My last email I mean the buffer head new in mpage_da_map_blocks() is a
dummy bh, the real buffer head lbh is not passed to get_block. We could
clear the delayed bit on successful return of get_block,
mpage_put_bnr_to_bhs() ignore that dummy bh anyway. But that seems
twisted, unccessary.
I still think clear the bit in the ext4_da_write_page() is more clean
way. the original patch clears the delayed bit on success case.
For the error case I think we could handle properly by only clear the
delayed bit if buffer is mapped.
Mingming
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> index 26f3626..9d25255 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> @@ -2873,6 +2873,7 @@ int ext4_ext_get_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
> allocated = max_blocks;
> ext4_ext_show_leaf(inode, path);
> __set_bit(BH_Mapped, &bh_result->b_state);
> + __clear_bit(BH_Delay, &bh_result->b_state);
> bh_result->b_bdev = inode->i_sb->s_bdev;
> bh_result->b_blocknr = newblock;
> out2:
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index 2194aa7..2a2f832 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -917,6 +917,7 @@ int ext4_get_blocks_handle(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
> goto cleanup;
>
> set_buffer_new(bh_result);
> + clear_buffer_delay(bh_result);
> got_it:
> map_bh(bh_result, inode->i_sb, le32_to_cpu(chain[depth-1].key));
> if (count > blocks_to_boundary)
> diff --git a/fs/mpage.c b/fs/mpage.c
> index c107728..0d05d7a 100644
> --- a/fs/mpage.c
> +++ b/fs/mpage.c
> @@ -897,6 +897,14 @@ static void mpage_da_map_blocks(struct mpage_da_data *mpd)
> int err = 0, remain = lbh->b_size;
> sector_t next = lbh->b_blocknr;
> struct buffer_head new;
> + int delay_buf = 0;
> +
> + /*
> + * We clear the delay bit in get_block so remember
> + * whether we are doing a delay allocation
> + */
> + if (buffer_delay(lbh))
> + delay_buf = 1;
>
> /*
> * We consider only non-mapped and non-allocated blocks
> @@ -926,7 +934,7 @@ static void mpage_da_map_blocks(struct mpage_da_data *mpd)
> * If blocks are delayed marked, we need to
> * put actual blocknr and drop delayed bit
> */
> - if (buffer_delay(lbh))
> + if (delay_buf)
> mpage_put_bnr_to_bhs(mpd, next, &new);
>
> /* go for the remaining blocks */
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-02 7:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-30 13:39 [PATCH -v2] delalloc and journal locking order inversion fixes Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-30 13:39 ` [PATCH] ext4: Use page_mkwrite vma_operations to get mmap write notification Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-30 13:39 ` [PATCH] ext4: Inverse locking order of page_lock and transaction start Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-30 13:39 ` [PATCH] vfs: Move mark_inode_dirty() from under page lock in generic_write_end() Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-30 13:39 ` [PATCH] ext4: Add validation to jbd lock inversion patch and split and writepage Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-30 13:39 ` [PATCH] ext4: inverse locking ordering of page_lock and transaction start in delalloc Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-30 13:39 ` [PATCH] ext4: Fix delalloc sync hang with journal lock inversion Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-02 9:35 ` Jan Kara
2008-06-02 9:59 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-02 10:27 ` Jan Kara
2008-06-05 13:54 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-05 16:22 ` Jan Kara
2008-06-05 19:19 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-11 12:41 ` Jan Kara
2008-06-11 13:56 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-11 17:48 ` Jan Kara
2008-06-12 23:10 ` Mingming Cao
2008-06-02 9:31 ` [PATCH] ext4: Add validation to jbd lock inversion patch and split and writepage Jan Kara
2008-06-02 9:52 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-02 10:40 ` Jan Kara
2008-05-30 17:51 ` [PATCH -v2] delalloc and journal locking order inversion fixes Mingming
2008-06-01 21:10 ` [PATCH] ext4: Need clear buffer_delay after page writeout for delayed allocation Mingming Cao
2008-06-02 3:14 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-02 3:50 ` Mingming Cao
2008-06-02 4:09 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-02 5:38 ` Mingming Cao
2008-06-02 6:35 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-02 7:04 ` Mingming Cao [this message]
2008-06-02 8:05 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-06-03 4:43 ` Mingming Cao
2008-06-03 10:07 ` 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=1212390247.4368.107.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).