Re: [PATCH 1/1] fat: improve sync performance by grouping writes revised

["Holden Karau" <holden@pigscanfly.ca>]

On 10/31/06, Matthew Wilcox <matthew@wil.cx> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 10:03:08AM -0500, Holden Karau wrote:
> > @@ -343,52 +344,65 @@ int fat_ent_read(struct inode *inode, st
> >       return ops->ent_get(fatent);
> >  }
> >
> > -/* FIXME: We can write the blocks as more big chunk. */
> > -static int fat_mirror_bhs(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
> > -                       int nr_bhs)
> > +
> > +static int fat_mirror_bhs_optw(struct super_block *sb, struct buffer_head **bhs,
> > +                            int nr_bhs , int wait)
> >  {
> >       struct msdos_sb_info *sbi = MSDOS_SB(sb);
> > -     struct buffer_head *c_bh;
> > +     struct buffer_head *c_bh[nr_bhs*(sbi->fats)];
> >       int err, n, copy;
> >
> > +     /* Always wait if mounted -o sync */
> > +     if (sb->s_flags & MS_SYNCHRONOUS )
> > +             wait = 1;
> >       err = 0;
> >       for (copy = 1; copy < sbi->fats; copy++) {
> >               sector_t backup_fat = sbi->fat_length * copy;
> > -
> > -             for (n = 0; n < nr_bhs; n++) {
> > -                     c_bh = sb_getblk(sb, backup_fat + bhs[n]->b_blocknr);
> > -                     if (!c_bh) {
> > +             for (n = 0 ; n < nr_bhs ;  n++ ) {
> > +                     c_bh[(copy-1)*nr_bhs+n] = sb_getblk(sb, backup_fat + bhs[n]->b_blocknr);
> > +                     if (!c_bh[(copy-1)*nr_bhs+n]) {
> > +                             printk(KERN_CRIT "fat: out of memory while copying backup fat. possible data loss\n");
>
> I don't like that at all.
Not much to be done about that. The amount of memory required is
fairly small, but if its not there its not there.
>
> >                               err = -ENOMEM;
> >                               goto error;
> >                       }
> > -                     memcpy(c_bh->b_data, bhs[n]->b_data, sb->s_blocksize);
> > -                     set_buffer_uptodate(c_bh);
> > -                     mark_buffer_dirty(c_bh);
> > -                     if (sb->s_flags & MS_SYNCHRONOUS)
> > -                             err = sync_dirty_buffer(c_bh);
> > -                     brelse(c_bh);
> > -                     if (err)
> > -                             goto error;
> > +             memcpy(c_bh[(copy-1)*nr_bhs+n]->b_data, bhs[n]->b_data, sb->s_blocksize);
> > +             set_buffer_uptodate(c_bh[(copy-1)*nr_bhs+n]);
> > +             mark_buffer_dirty(c_bh[(copy-1)*nr_bhs+n]);
> >               }
> >       }
> > +
> > +     if (wait) {
> > +             for (n = 0 ; n < nr_bhs ; n++) {
> > +                     printk("copying to %d to  %d\n" ,n,  nr_bhs*(sbi->fats-1)+n);
>
> Is this the right version of the patch?  The printk should never be left in.
> Plus, as far as I can tell, that whole loop is actually just memcpy().
whoops. That was in for debugging, I thought I took that out. The loop
structure is how it was before, but I don't see a way to get rid of
it, do you have an idea?
>


-- 
Cell: 613-276-1645