From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>
Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, tytso@mit.edu, sandeen@redhat.com,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Rework the ext4_da_writepages
Date: Fri, 1 Aug 2008 10:37:25 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080801050725.GC25255@skywalker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080801045412.GB25255@skywalker>
On Fri, Aug 01, 2008 at 10:24:12AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 02:10:55PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> > On Jul 31, 2008 23:03 +0530, Aneesh Kumar 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.
> >
> > Can you please clarify this? Does this mean we take one pass through the
> > dirty pages, but possibly do not allocate some subset of the pages. Then,
> > at some later time these holes are written out separately? This seems
> > like it would produce fragmentation if we do not work to ensure the pages
> > are allocated in sequence. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment and
> > the unmapped pages are immediately mapped on the next loop?
>
> We take multiple pass through the dirty pages until wbc->nr_to_write is
> <= 0 or we don't have anything more to write. But if get_block doesn't
> return the requested number of blocks we may possibly not writeout
> some of the pages. Whether this can result in a disk layout worse than
> the current, I am not sure. I haven't looked at the layout yet.
> But these pages which are skipped are redirtied again via
> reditry_pages_for_writepage and will be forced for writeout. Well
> we can do better by setting wbc->encountered_congestion = 1; even
> though we are not really congested. That would cause most of the pdflush
> work func to retry writeback_indoes.
>
> for(;;) {
> ...
> wbc.pages_skipped = 0;
> writeback_inodes(&wbc);
> ...
>
> if (wbc.nr_to_write > 0 || wbc.pages_skipped > 0) {
> /* Wrote less than expected */
> if (wbc.encountered_congestion || wbc.more_io)
> congestion_wait(WRITE, HZ/10);
> else
> break;
> }
>
> }
>
like below ?
diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
index 53a8fc7..6fd527c 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
@@ -1773,6 +1773,14 @@ static void mpage_da_map_blocks(struct mpage_da_data *mpd)
return;
BUG_ON(new.b_size == 0);
+ if (new.b_size < lbh->b_size) {
+ /*
+ * allocated less blocks. force writepages
+ * to be called again
+ */
+ mpd->wbc->more_io = 1;
+ }
+
if (buffer_new(&new))
__unmap_underlying_blocks(mpd->inode, &new);
@@ -1876,6 +1884,8 @@ static int __mpage_da_writepage(struct page *page,
* skip rest of the page in the page_vec
*/
mpd->io_done = 1;
+ /* We want writepages to be called again */
+ wbc->more_io = 1;
redirty_page_for_writepage(wbc, page);
unlock_page(page);
return MPAGE_DA_EXTENT_TAIL;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-08-01 5:07 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 [this message]
2008-08-01 3:08 ` Theodore Tso
2008-08-01 4:06 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
-- 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=20080801050725.GC25255@skywalker \
--to=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=adilger@sun.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 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).