From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D194EB64DD for ; Sun, 6 Aug 2023 03:13:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229844AbjHFDNO (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Aug 2023 23:13:14 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56300 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229441AbjHFDNM (ORCPT ); Sat, 5 Aug 2023 23:13:12 -0400 Received: from out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com (out30-132.freemail.mail.aliyun.com [115.124.30.132]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4CB681FE4; Sat, 5 Aug 2023 20:13:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Alimail-AntiSpam: AC=PASS;BC=-1|-1;BR=01201311R761e4;CH=green;DM=||false|;DS=||;FP=0|-1|-1|-1|0|-1|-1|-1;HT=ay29a033018046049;MF=liusong@linux.alibaba.com;NM=1;PH=DS;RN=7;SR=0;TI=SMTPD_---0Vp4wN7H_1691291537; Received: from localhost(mailfrom:liusong@linux.alibaba.com fp:SMTPD_---0Vp4wN7H_1691291537) by smtp.aliyun-inc.com; Sun, 06 Aug 2023 11:13:08 +0800 From: Liu Song To: adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, tytso@mit.edu, jack@suse.cz Cc: liusong@linux.alibaba.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, joseph.qi@linux.alibaba.com Subject: [PATCH] ext4: do not mark inode dirty which is already dirtied under append-write scenario Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2023 11:12:17 +0800 Message-Id: <20230806031217.13962-1-liusong@linux.alibaba.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.19.1.6.gb485710b In-Reply-To: <20230711034256.72651-1-liusong@linux.alibaba.com> References: <20230711034256.72651-1-liusong@linux.alibaba.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Hi, Any comments on this? Considering the most extreme scenario where a file is appended with only one byte each time, "jbd2_journal_dirty_metadata" will be executed because i_size has changed. Therefore, it is better to update raw_inode's size after the writeback is completed, which can also ensure the consistency of metadata and data, and obtain better performance benefits in high-frequency append write scenarios. Thanks