From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, sandeen@redhat.com
Subject: Re: Delayed allocation and page_lock vs transaction start ordering
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 20:41:28 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080527151128.GA13237@skywalker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080527124312.GG5178@duck.suse.cz>
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:43:12PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 26-05-08 23:30:43, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>
> > I have got another question now related to page_mkwrite. AFAIU writepage
> > writeout dirty buffer_heads. It also looks at whether the pages are
> > dirty or not. In the page_mkwrite callback both are not true. ie we call
> > set_page_dirty from do_wp_page after calling page_mkwrite. I haven't
> > verified whether the above is correct or not. Just thinking reading the
> > code.
> Writepage call itself doesn't look at whether the page is dirty or not -
> that flag is already cleared when writepage is called. You are right that
> the page is marked dirty only after page_mkwrite is called - the meaning of
> page_mkwrite() call is roughly "someone wants to do the first write to this
> page via mmap, prepare filesystem for that". But we don't really care
> whether the page is dirty or not - we know it carries correct data (it is
> uptodate) and so we can write it if we want (and need).
>
I am looking at __block_write_full_page and we have
if (!buffer_mapped(bh) && buffer_dirty(bh)) {
WARN_ON(bh->b_size != blocksize);
err = get_block(inode, block, bh, 1);
if (err)
ie, we do get_block only if the buffer_head is dirty. So I am bit
doubtful whether we are actually allocating blocks via page_mkwrite.
-aneesh
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-27 15:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-04-15 16:14 Delayed allocation and page_lock vs transaction start ordering Jan Kara
2008-04-15 17:58 ` Badari Pulavarty
2008-04-16 9:26 ` Jan Kara
2008-04-15 18:08 ` Mingming Cao
2008-04-15 23:28 ` Mingming Cao
2008-04-15 23:33 ` Mingming Cao
2008-04-16 10:35 ` Jan Kara
2008-04-16 18:24 ` Mingming Cao
2008-04-16 19:55 ` Badari Pulavarty
2008-04-16 9:38 ` Jan Kara
2008-04-18 18:54 ` Andreas Dilger
2008-04-18 19:38 ` Mingming Cao
2008-04-21 17:13 ` Jan Kara
2008-05-21 8:21 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-26 17:21 ` Jan Kara
2008-05-26 18:00 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-27 12:43 ` Jan Kara
2008-05-27 15:11 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
2008-05-28 9:33 ` Jan Kara
2008-05-28 9:43 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2008-05-28 10:33 ` Jan Kara
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=20080527151128.GA13237@skywalker \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@redhat.com \
/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