Re: [PATCH v2 3/9] ext4: trim delalloc extent

Zhang Yi
2024-04-29T11:29:01Z

On 2024/4/29 18:25, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 26-04-24 17:38:23, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> On 2024/4/25 23:56, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> On Wed 10-04-24 11:41:57, Zhang Yi wrote:
>>>> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> The cached delalloc or hole extent should be trimed to the map->map_len
>>>> if we map delalloc blocks in ext4_da_map_blocks(). But it doesn't
>>>> trigger any issue now because the map->m_len is always set to one and we
>>>> always insert one delayed block once a time. Fix this by trim the extent
>>>> once we get one from the cached extent tree, prearing for mapping a
>>>> extent with multiple delalloc blocks.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@huawei.com>
>>>
>>> Well, but we already do the trimming in ext4_da_map_blocks(), don't we? You
>>> just move it to a different place... Or do you mean that we actually didn't
>>> set 'map' at all in some cases and now we do?
>>
>> Yeah, now we only trim map len if we found an unwritten extent or written
>> extent in the cache, this isn't okay if we found a hole and
>> ext4_insert_delayed_block() and ext4_da_map_blocks() support inserting
>> map->len blocks. If we found a hole which es->es_len is shorter than the
>> length we want to write, we could delay more blocks than we expected.
>>
>> Please assume we write data [A, C) to a file that contains a hole extent
>> [A, B) and a written extent [B, D) in cache.
>>
>> A B C D
>> before da write: ...hhhhhh|wwwwww....
>>
>> Then we will get extent [A, B), we should trim map->m_len to B-A before
>> inserting new delalloc blocks, if not, the range [B, C) is duplicated.
>
> Thanks for explanation!
>

Current change log is not clear enough now, I will put this explanation
into the changelog in my nextn iteratio, make it easier to understand.

>>> In either case the 'map'
>>> handling looks a bit sloppy in ext4_da_map_blocks() as e.g. the
>>> 'add_delayed' case doesn't seem to bother with properly setting 'map' based
>>> on what it does. So maybe we should clean that up to always set 'map' just
>>> before returning at the same place where we update the 'bh'? And maybe bh
>>> update could be updated in some common helper because it's content is
>>> determined by the 'map' content?
>>>
>>
>> I agree with you, it looks that we should always revise the map->m_len
>> once we found an extent from the cache, and then do corresponding handling
>> according to the extent type. so it's hard to put it to a common place.
>> But we can merge the handling of written and unwritten extent, I've moved
>> the bh updating into ext4_da_get_block_prep() and do some cleanup in
>> patch 9, please look at that patch, does it looks fine to you?
>
> Oh, yes, what patch 9 does improve things significantly and it addresses my
> concern. So feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>
> Maybe in the changelog you can just mention that the remaining cases not
> setting map->m_len will be handled in patch 9.
>

Sure.

Thanks,
Yi.