From: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, sandeen@redhat.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Drop mapped buffer_head check during page_mkwrite
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:24:45 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090826022445.GA32712@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1251210179-7634-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:52:59PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Inorder to check whether the buffer_heads are mapped we need
> to hold page lock. Otherwise a reclaim can cleanup the attached
> buffer_heads. Instead of taking page lock and check whether
> buffer_heads are mapped we let the write_begin/write_end callback
> does the equivalent. It does have a performance impact in that we
> are doing more work if we the buffer_heads are already mapped.
I'm not sure I understand the commit description. From the patch you
are removing the check to see if all of the buffers are mapped. But
the patch isn't moving the check to ext4_write_begin() or
ext4_write_end(). Are you saying the check is already in
ext4_write_begin()? It doesn't seem to be in ext4_write_end().
I see that we do call write_page_buffers() in ext4_write_begin(), and
in do_journal_get_write_access() we do check to see if the buffers are
present. But if they aren't, we don't return an error; we just fail
request journal write access for the buffer head.
Am I missing something? This patch doesn't feel complete, or the
commit description is very confusing....
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-26 2:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-25 14:22 [PATCH] ext4: Drop mapped buffer_head check during page_mkwrite Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-08-26 2:24 ` Theodore Tso [this message]
2009-08-26 5:14 ` 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=20090826022445.GA32712@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).