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
next prev parent 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).