Andrew Morton wrote:
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().
I'm mostly worried about delayed allocation case. My impression was that
holding number of pages locked isn't a good idea, even if they're locked
in index order. so, I was going to turn number of pages writeback, then
allocate blocks for all of them at once, then put proper blocknr's into
bh's (or PG_mappedtodisk?).
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.
nope, I mean sb->inode->page walk.
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.
if I'm right holding number of pages locked, then they won't be locked, but
writeback. of course kjournald can block on writeback as well, but how does
it find pages with *newly allocated* blocks only?
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.
not dirty inodes only, but rather some fast way to find pages with newly
allocated pages.
I assume (hope) that your delayed allocation code implements
->writepages()? Doing the allocation one-page-at-a-time sounds painful...
indeed. this is a root cause of all this complexity.
thanks, Alex
-
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]
