Re: [prepatch] address_space-based writeback

Andrew Morton
2002-04-10T23:33:14Z

Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
>
> At 22:44 10/04/02, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >When a page is marked dirty, the path which is followed
> >is page->mapping->host->i_sb. So in this case the page will
> >be attached to its page->mapping.dirty_pages, and
> >page->mapping->host will be attached to page->mapping->host->i_sb.s_dirty
> >
> >This is as it always was - I didn't change any of this.
>
> Um, NTFS uses address spaces for things where ->host is not an inode at all
> so doing host->i_sb will give you god knows what but certainly not a super
> block!

But it's a `struct inode *' :(

What happens when someone runs set_page_dirty against one of
the address_space's pages? I guess that doesn't happen, because
it would explode. Do these address_spaces not support writable
mappings?

I like to think in terms of "top down" and "bottom up".

set_page_dirty is the core "bottom up" function which propagates
dirtiness information from the bottom of the superblock/inode/page
tree up to the top.

writeback is top-down. It goes from the superblock list down
to pages.

The assumption about page->mapping->host being an inode
only occurs in the bottom-up path, at set_page_dirty().

> As long as your patches don't break that is possible to have I am happy...
> But from what you are saying above I have a bad feeling you are somehow
> assuming that a mapping's host is an inode...

Well the default implementation of __set_page_dirty() will
make that assumption. (It always has).

But the address_space may implement its own a_ops->set_page_dirty(page),
so you can do whatever you need to do there, yes?

I currently have:

static inline int set_page_dirty(struct page *page)
{
if (page->mapping) {
int (*spd)(struct page *, int reserve_page);

spd = page->mapping->a_ops->set_page_dirty;
if (spd)
return (*spd)(page, 1);
}
return __set_page_dirty_buffers(page, 1);
}

Where __set_page_dirty_buffers() will dirty the buffers if
they exist. And non-buffer_head-backed filesystems which
use page->private MUST implement set_page_dirty().

The reserve_page stuff is for delayed-allocate, the priority
and timing of which has been pushed waaay back by this. I'm
keeping the reserve_page infrastructure around at present
because of vague thoughts that it may be useful to fix the
data-loss bug which occurs when a shared mapping of a sparse
file has insufficient disk space to satisfy new page instantiations.
Dunno yet.

(Sometime I need to go through and spell out all the new a_ops
methods in all the filesystems, and take out the fall-through-
to-default-handler stuff here, and in do_flushpage() and
try_to_release_page() and others. But not now).

-