From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: cmm@us.ibm.com, tytso@mit.edu, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly
Date: Thu, 07 May 2009 10:36:49 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4A030011.7040901@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1241692770-22547-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> ext4_get_blocks_wrap does a block lookup requesting to
> allocate new blocks. A lookup of blocks in prealloc area
> result in setting the unwritten flag in buffer_head. So
> a write to an unwritten extent will cause the buffer_head
> to have unwritten and mapped flag set. Clear hte unwritten
> buffer_head flag before requesting to allocate blocks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/inode.c | 7 +++++++
> 1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index c3cd00f..f6d7e9b 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -1149,6 +1149,7 @@ int ext4_get_blocks_wrap(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, sector_t block,
> int retval;
>
> clear_buffer_mapped(bh);
> + clear_buffer_unwritten(bh);
>
> /*
> * Try to see if we can get the block without requesting
> @@ -1179,6 +1180,12 @@ int ext4_get_blocks_wrap(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, sector_t block,
> return retval;
>
> /*
> + * The above get_blocks can cause the buffer to be
> + * marked unwritten. So clear the same.
> + */
> + clear_buffer_unwritten(bh);
hm, thinking out loud here.
ext4_ext_get_blocks() will only set unwritten if (!create) ... but then
ext4_get_blocks_wrap() calls ext4_ext_get_blocks() !create as an
argument no matter what, the first time, for an initial lookup.
But if ext4_get_blocks_wrap() was called with !create, then we return
regardless, so ok - by the time you get to the above hunk, we -are- in
create mode, we're planning to write it ... so I guess clearing the
unwritten state makes sense here.
But is this too late, because it's after this?
/*
* Returns if the blocks have already allocated
*
* Note that if blocks have been preallocated
* ext4_ext_get_block() returns th create = 0
* with buffer head unmapped.
*/
if (retval > 0 && buffer_mapped(bh))
return retval;
I guess not; ext4_ext_get_blocks() won't map the buffer if it's found to
be preallocated/unwritten because it was called with !create. If we're
going on to write it, we want to clear unwritten.
So I guess this looks right, although I can't help but think that in
general, the buffer_head state management is really getting to be a
hard-to-follow mess...
-Eric
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-05-07 15:36 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-05-07 10:39 [PATCH 1/3] ext4: Properly initialize the buffer_head state Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 10:39 ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 10:39 ` [PATCH 3/3] vfs: Add BUG_ON for delayed and unwritten extents in submit_bh Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-07 15:37 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-12 3:17 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12 4:52 ` [PATCH 3/3] vfs: Add BUG_ON for delayed and unwritten extentsin submit_bh Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-12 13:25 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-07 15:36 ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2009-05-08 8:12 ` [PATCH 2/3] ext4: Clear the unwritten buffer_head flag properly Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-12 3:08 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12 4:46 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-13 18:56 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-13 22:28 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-14 6:00 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-14 5:40 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-14 13:14 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-07 15:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] ext4: Properly initialize the buffer_head state Eric Sandeen
2009-05-10 23:57 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-11 9:24 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
2009-05-11 11:31 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-11 14:49 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-05-12 3:17 ` Theodore Tso
2009-05-12 4:47 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
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=4A030011.7040901@redhat.com \
--to=sandeen@redhat.com \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=cmm@us.ibm.com \
--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).