From: Zheng Liu <gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@openvz.org>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Uninitialized extent races
Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 00:31:46 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121231163146.GA6795@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121231083221.GA7564@quack.suse.cz>
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 09:32:21AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 24-12-12 19:17:45, Zheng Liu wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 01:02:43PM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 05:19:29PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > No, I'm speaking about merging currently uninitialized extents. I.e.
> > > > suppose someone does the following on a filesystem with dioread_nolock so
> > > > that writeback happens via unwritten extents:
> > > > fd = open("file", O_RDWR);
> > > > pwrite(fd, buf, 4096, 0);
> > > > flusher thread starts writing
> > > > we create uninitialized extent for
> > > > range 0-4096
> > > > fallocate(fd, 0, 4096, 4096);
> > > > - we merge extents and now have just 1 uninitialized extent for range
> > > > 0-8192
> > > > ext4_convert_unwritten_extents() now
> > > > has to split the extent to finish
> > > > the IO.
> > >
> > > Ah, I see. Disabling the the merging that might take place as a
> > > result of the fallocate. Yes, I agree that's a completely sane thing
> > > to do.
> > >
> > > The alternate approach would be to add a flag in the extent status
> > > tree indicating that an unwritten conversion is pending, but that
> > > would add more complexity.
> >
> > Sorry for delay reply. Indeed we could add a flag in extent status tree
> > to indicate an pending unwritten extent, and I believe that it can bring
> > us some benefits. But I wonder whether this case often happens. Do we
> > have some real workloads?
> It doesn't happen often but it *can* happen. Thus you have to implement
> a code which handles the case. I don't think bit in extent status tree is
> really necessary. Just disabling merging of uninitialized extents is
> simple. If we see there are some real workloads which have problems with
> it, we can resort to a more complex solution using extent tree...
Thanks for your explanation. I don't know whether or not you have
generated a patch for this problem. I am willing to make it in a proper
time. If you have begun to generate it, please let me know. :-)
Happy New Year,
- Zheng
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-12-31 16:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-12-21 1:25 Uninitialized extent races Jan Kara
2012-12-21 3:11 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-12-21 16:19 ` Jan Kara
2012-12-21 18:02 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-12-21 22:49 ` Jan Kara
2012-12-21 23:03 ` Theodore Ts'o
2012-12-24 11:17 ` Zheng Liu
2012-12-31 8:32 ` Jan Kara
2012-12-31 16:31 ` Zheng Liu [this message]
2012-12-31 16:44 ` Jan Kara
2013-01-01 4:49 ` Zheng Liu
2012-12-21 12:34 ` Dmitry Monakhov
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=20121231163146.GA6795@gmail.com \
--to=gnehzuil.liu@gmail.com \
--cc=dmonakhov@openvz.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--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).