From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jack@suse.cz, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] ext4: check and update i_disksize properly
Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2021 14:11:23 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210706121123.GB7922@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210706024210.746788-2-yi.zhang@huawei.com>
On Tue 06-07-21 10:42:07, Zhang Yi wrote:
> After commit 3da40c7b0898 ("ext4: only call ext4_truncate when size <=
> isize"), i_disksize could always be updated to i_size in ext4_setattr(),
> and it seems that there is no other way that could appear
> i_disksize < i_size besides the delalloc write. In the case of delay
Well, there are also direct IO writes which have temporarily i_disksize <
i_size but when you hold i_rwsem, you're right that delalloc is the only
reason why you can see i_disksize < i_size AFAIK.
> alloc write, ext4_writepages() could update i_disksize for the new delay
> allocated blocks properly. So we could switch to check i_size instead
> of i_disksize in ext4_da_write_end() when write to the end of the file.
I agree that since ext4_da_should_update_i_disksize() needs to return true
for us to touch i_disksize, writeback has to have already allocated block
underlying the end of write (new_i_size position) and thus we are
guaranteed that writeback will also soon update i_disksize after the
new_i_size position. So I agree that your switch to testing i_size instead
of i_disksize should not have any bad effect... Thinking about this some
more why do we need i_disksize update in ext4_da_write_end() at all? The
page will be dirtied and when writeback will happen we will update
i_disksize to i_size. Updating i_disksize earlier brings no benefit - the user
will see zeros instead of valid data if we crash before the writeback
happened. Am I missing something guys?
Honza
> we also could remove ext4_mark_inode_dirty() together because
> generic_write_end() will dirty the inode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 21 ++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index d8de607849df..6f6a61f3ae5f 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -3087,32 +3087,27 @@ static int ext4_da_write_end(struct file *file,
> * generic_write_end() will run mark_inode_dirty() if i_size
> * changes. So let's piggyback the i_disksize mark_inode_dirty
> * into that.
> + *
> + * Check i_size not i_disksize here because ext4_writepages() could
> + * update i_disksize from i_size for delay allocated blocks properly.
> */
> new_i_size = pos + copied;
> - if (copied && new_i_size > EXT4_I(inode)->i_disksize) {
> + if (copied && new_i_size > inode->i_size) {
> if (ext4_has_inline_data(inode) ||
> - ext4_da_should_update_i_disksize(page, end)) {
> + ext4_da_should_update_i_disksize(page, end))
> ext4_update_i_disksize(inode, new_i_size);
> - /* We need to mark inode dirty even if
> - * new_i_size is less that inode->i_size
> - * bu greater than i_disksize.(hint delalloc)
> - */
> - ret = ext4_mark_inode_dirty(handle, inode);
> - }
> }
>
> if (write_mode != CONVERT_INLINE_DATA &&
> ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_MAY_INLINE_DATA) &&
> ext4_has_inline_data(inode))
> - ret2 = ext4_da_write_inline_data_end(inode, pos, len, copied,
> + ret = ext4_da_write_inline_data_end(inode, pos, len, copied,
> page);
> else
> - ret2 = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied,
> + ret = generic_write_end(file, mapping, pos, len, copied,
> page, fsdata);
>
> - copied = ret2;
> - if (ret2 < 0)
> - ret = ret2;
> + copied = ret;
> ret2 = ext4_journal_stop(handle);
> if (unlikely(ret2 && !ret))
> ret = ret2;
> --
> 2.31.1
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-06 12:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-06 2:42 [RFC PATCH 0/4] ext4: improve delalloc buffer write performance Zhang Yi
2021-07-06 2:42 ` [RFC PATCH 1/4] ext4: check and update i_disksize properly Zhang Yi
2021-07-06 12:11 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2021-07-06 14:40 ` Zhang Yi
2021-07-06 15:26 ` Jan Kara
2021-07-07 6:18 ` Zhang Yi
2021-07-06 2:42 ` [RFC PATCH 2/4] ext4: correct the error path of ext4_write_inline_data_end() Zhang Yi
2021-07-06 12:28 ` Jan Kara
2021-07-06 2:42 ` [RFC PATCH 3/4] ext4: factor out write end code of inline file Zhang Yi
2021-07-07 16:49 ` Jan Kara
2021-07-10 8:13 ` Zhang Yi
2021-07-06 2:42 ` [RFC PATCH 4/4] ext4: drop unnecessary journal handle in delalloc write Zhang Yi
2021-07-07 16:59 ` Jan Kara
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=20210706121123.GB7922@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.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