Re: partial reiser4 review comments

["Nate Diller" <nate.diller@gmail.com>]

On 8/11/06, Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> wrote:
> Nate Diller wrote:
>
> > On 8/9/06, Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>
> >> > I must admit that standalone code snipplet doesn't really tell me a
> >> lot.
> >> >
> >> >Do you mean the possibility to pass around a filesystem-defined
> >> structure
> >> >to multiple allocator calls?  I'm pretty sure can add that, I though it
> >> >would be useful multiple times in the past but always found ways around
> >> >it.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Assuming I understand your discussion, I see two ways to go, one is to
> >> pass around fs specific state and continue to call into the FS many
> >> times, and the other is to instead provide the fs with helper functions
> >> that accomplish readahead calculation, page allocation, etc., and let
> >> the FS keep its state naturally without having to preserve it in some fs
> >> defined structure.  The second approach would be cleaner code design,
> >> that would also ease cross-os porting of filesystems, in my view.
> >
> >
> > the second approach is the one i was heading towards with my
> > unfinished a_ops patches.  *please* won't someone pay me to do that
> > work...
> >
> > NATE
> >
> >
> You might describe it in a paragraph or so instead of just mentioning
> it.....;-)

start by making tree_lock (write) private, using the interface
detailed below.  No one should be able to add/remove pages from the
address space without going through the a_ops interface.  this patch
is part of a (much) larger unfinished, and outdated, set intended to
put this interface in place.  people familiar with this code will
immediately note that there are a few hard problems to solve here,
most notably the various {truncate|invalidate}_mapping_pages calls,
and the locking involved.  Cleaning up the inode reclaim paths a bit
should help this, and that work is unfinished as well.

I'm always hesitant to post stuff like this, because -ENOPATCH is
really an appropriate response here.

NATE

diff -urpN linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm1/include/linux/fs.h
linux-extent/include/linux/fs.h
--- linux-2.6.15-rc5-mm1/include/linux/fs.h	2005-12-10 16:49:30.000000000 -0800
+++ linux-extent/include/linux/fs.h	2006-08-11 15:47:19.000000000 -0700
@@ -340,18 +340,33 @@ struct address_space;
struct writeback_control;

struct address_space_operations {
-	int (*writepage)(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc);
-	int (*readpage)(struct file *, struct page *);
-	int (*sync_page)(struct page *);
-
-	/* Write back some dirty pages from this mapping. */
-	int (*writepages)(struct address_space *, struct writeback_control *);
-
	/* Set a page dirty */
+	/* takes lock to move lists, update counts */
	int (*set_page_dirty)(struct page *page);
+	/* get rid of this, all it does is unplug blkdev */
+	int (*sync_page)(struct page *);

+	/*
+	 * Write back dirty pages / invalidate all pages that fall within
+	 * the given page range (end byte inclusive).  These only affect
+	 * pages already cached in this mapping.
+	 */
+	int (*writepages)(struct address_space *mapping,
+			  struct writeback_control *wbc);
+	int (*invalidate_range)(struct address_space *mapping,
+				pgoff_t index, unsigned nr_pages);
+
+	/*
+	 * Read / create pages within the given index extent.  These
+	 * silently skip any pages which are already cached in this mapping.
+	 *
+	 * Return the number of pages allocated within the range, or an error.
+	 */
+	/* filp here is wierd */
	int (*readpages)(struct file *filp, struct address_space *mapping,
-			struct list_head *pages, unsigned nr_pages);
+			pgoff_t index, unsigned nr_pages);
+	int (*instantiate_range)(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index,
+			unsigned nr_pages);

	/*
	 * ext3 requires that a successful prepare_write() call be followed
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/