linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly
Date: Tue, 12 May 2009 10:16:27 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090512044627.GA6753@skywalker> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090512030856.GI21518@mit.edu>

On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:08:56PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 04:09:29PM +0530, 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>
> 
> I've rewritten the commit changelog to this, which I believe more
> accurately describes the patch.  Comments, please?
> 
> ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag after the extent is initialized
> 
> From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> 
> The BH_Unwritten flag indicates that the buffer is allocated on disk
> but has not been written; that is, the disk was part of a persistent
> preallocation area.  That flag should only be set when a get_blocks()
> function is looking up a inode's logical to physical block mapping.
> 
> When ext4_get_blocks_wrap() is called with create=1, the uninitialized
> extent is converted into an initialized one, so the BH_Unwritten flag
> is no longer appropriate.  Hence, we need to make sure the
> BH_Unwritten is not left set, to avoid the ensuing confusion and
> hilarty.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
> 

I think it is good. But one thing missing in the commit message is,
what happens if we do a write to prealloc space. Since a
get_block(create = 1) is now split into __get_block(create = 0 )  and
__get_block(create = 1). That would mean if we pass a buffer head with
BH_Unwritten cleared we will have


1) buffer_head as BH_Unwritten cleared.

2) __get_block(create = 0 ) -> Since it is prealloc space we will have
BH_Unwritten set .

3) __get_block(create = 1) -> get the blocks out of prealloc space.
and retun with BH_Mapped set. 

That would imply we have BH_Unwritten and BH_Mapped set in the above
case which is wrong. So we need a BH_Unwritten clear between (2) and
(3). The patch does the same. May be we need to capture it in commit
message.

-aneesh




  reply	other threads:[~2009-05-12  4:46 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   ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly Eric Sandeen
2009-05-08  8:12     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-12  3:08   ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12  4:46     ` Aneesh Kumar K.V [this message]
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=20090512044627.GA6753@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 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).