Re: [PATCH 1/2] Added flush_disk to factor out common buffer cache flushing code.

[Andrew Patterson <andrew.patterson@hp.com>]

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 12:59 -0500, James Bottomley wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-05-06 at 04:44 -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 05:04:19PM -0600, Andrew Patterson wrote:
> > > Added flush_disk to factor out common buffer cache flushing code.
> > > 
> > > We need to be able to flush the buffer cache for more than just when a
> > > disk is changed, so we factor out common cache flush code in
> > > check_disk_change() to an internal flush_disk() routine.  This routine
> > > will then be used for both disk changes and disk resizes (in a later
> > > patch).
> > > 
> > > Include the disk name in the text indicating that there are busy
> > > inodes on the device and increase the KERN severity of the message.
> > 
> > This doesn't make much sense to me.  When a disk has grown there's no
> > point in invalidating any buffers, and when it has shrunk it's too late
> > already.  Also I suspect modern filesystems might be really allergic to
> > this kind of under the hood actions.  That is if they use the bdev
> > mapping at all, something that at least xfs and I think btrfs aswell
> > don't do at all.
> 
> I agree on the grown disc case.  For the shrunk disk, we need at least
> to invalidate the sectors that no-longer physically exist.
> 
> The two use cases for shrinking I can see are
> 
>      1. planned: the fs is already shrunk to within the new boundaries
>         and all data is relocated, so invalidate is fine (any dirty
>         buffers that might exist in the shrunk region are there only
>         because they were relocated but not yet written to their
>         original location).

So why do we need to invalidate here if everything is fine?


>      2. unplanned:  In this case, the fs is probably toast, so whether
>         we invalidate or not isn't going to make a whole lot of
>         difference; it's still going to try to read or write from
>         sectors beyond the new size and get I/O errors.
> 

Invalidating here might be useful in that errors are reported earlier.

> Unfortunately, we don't seem to have a partial invalidation function for
> the page cache and filesystem, so should we have one?
> 

I have been having problems with my email, hence the missing 2 patches.
I'll resend the whole series and add flush_disk() call in
revalidate_disk() as separate patch, so that the flush code can be
optionally applied.


> James
> 
> 
-- 
Andrew Patterson