On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:57:12 +0400 Alex Tomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:18:12 +0400 Alex Tomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>> Yes, there can be issues with needing to allocate journal space within the
> >>> context of a commit. But
> >> no-no, this isn't required. we only need to mark pages/blocks within
> >> transaction, otherwise race is possible when we allocate blocks in transaction,
> >> then transacton starts to commit, then we mark pages/blocks to be flushed
> >> before commit.
> >
> > I don't understand. Can you please describe the race in more detail?
>
> if I understood your idea right, then in data=ordered mode, commit thread writes
> all dirty mapped blocks before real commit.
>
> say, we have two threads: t1 is a thread doing flushing and t2 is a commit thread
>
> t1 t2
> find dirty inode I
> find some dirty unallocated blocks
> journal_start()
> allocate blocks
> attach them to I
> journal_stop()
I'm still not understanding. The terms you're using are a bit ambiguous.
What does "find some dirty unallocated blocks" mean? Find a page which is
dirty and which does not have a disk mapping?
Normally the above operation would be implemented via
ext4_writeback_writepage(), and it runs under lock_page().
> going to commit
> find inode I dirty
> do NOT find these blocks because they're
> allocated only, but pages/bhs aren't mapped
> to them
> start commit
I think you're assuming here that commit would be using ->t_sync_datalist
to locate dirty buffer_heads.
But under this proposal, t_sync_datalist just gets removed: the new
ordered-data mode _only_ need to do the sb->inode->page walk. So if I'm
understanding you, the way in which we'd handle any such race is to make
kjournald's writeback of the dirty pages block in lock_page(). Once it
gets the page lock it can look to see if some other thread has mapped the
page to disk.
It may turn out that kjournald needs a private way of getting at the
I_DIRTY_PAGES inodes to do this properly, but I don't _think_ so. If we
had the radix-tree-of-dirty-inodes thing then that's easy enough to do
anyway, with a tagged search. But I expect that a single pass through the
superblock's dirty inodes would suffice for ordered-data. Files which
have chattr +j would screw things up, as usual.
I assume (hope) that your delayed allocation code implements
->writepages()? Doing the allocation one-page-at-a-time sounds painful...
>
> map pages/bhs to just allocate blocks
>
>
> so, either we mark pages/bhs someway within journal_start()--journal_stop() or
> commit thread should do lookup for all dirty pages. the latter doesn't sound nice, IMHO.
>
I don't think I'm understanding you fully yet.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
