From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:33329 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727204AbfBAHZW (ORCPT ); Fri, 1 Feb 2019 02:25:22 -0500 Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2019 08:25:20 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] xfs: don't try to map blocks beyond i_size in writeback Message-ID: <20190201072520.GB14711@lst.de> References: <20190131075524.4769-1-hch@lst.de> <20190131075524.4769-5-hch@lst.de> <20190131181108.GF36239@bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190131181108.GF36239@bfoster> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jan 31, 2019 at 01:11:09PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > The code looks fine, but I don't see any more value in this code than > the similar code down in xfs_iomap_write_allocate(). The comment implies > this skips writeback for the rest of the file, but AFACT the higher > level page->index code in xfs_do_writepage() already does that. All > these checks do is skip the remaining blocks in the current page. When > you consider that we're most likely sending an I/O in the latter case > either way, I'm curious why we'd bother to keep this around at all. It just seems a little pointless to take locks and do a lookup in the extent tree. But I can try dropping it and re-run tests without it.