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 -V2] ext4: Drop mapped buffer_head check during page_mkwrite
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 22:26:56 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090829022656.GK16732@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1251264196-31382-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 10:53:16AM +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.
So I started looking at all of the work that we need to do in
write_begin/write_end; did you check both write paths depending on
whether we are using delayed allocation or not? It would seem to me
that it might be better to use lock_page() and unlock_page() around
the check, since in many work loads the buffer heads will already be
mapped often, and it appears to me that write_begin() will end up
locking the page anyway.
Am I missing something?
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-29 2:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-26 5:23 [PATCH -V2] ext4: Drop mapped buffer_head check during page_mkwrite Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-08-29 2:26 ` Theodore Tso [this message]
2009-08-31 6:30 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-08-31 12:24 ` Theodore Tso
2009-08-31 12:33 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-08-31 12:50 ` Theodore Tso
2009-08-31 17:06 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-09-06 3:49 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-07 12:22 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-09-07 9:44 ` [PATCH -v3] ext4: Take page lock before looking at attached buffer_heads flags Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-09-10 3:25 ` Theodore Tso
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=20090829022656.GK16732@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).