On Fri, 04 May 2007 11:39:22 +0400 Alex Tomas <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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?).
ooh, that sounds hacky and quite worrisome. If someone comes in and does
an fsync() we've lost our synchronisation point. Yes, all callers happen
to do
lock_page();
wait_on_page_writeback();
(I think) but we've never considered a bare PageWriteback() as something
which protects page internals. We're OK wrt page reclaim and we're OK wrt
truncate and invalidate. As long as the page is uptodate we _should_ be OK
wrt readpage(). But still, it'd be better to use the standard locking
rather than inventing new rules, if poss.
I'd be 100% OK with locking multiple pages in ascending pgoff_t order.
Locking the page is the standard way of doing this synchronisation and the
only problem I can think of is that having a tremendous number of pages
locked could cause the wake_up_page() waitqueue hashes to get overloaded
and go slow. But it's also possible to lock many, many pages with
readahead and nobody has reported problems in there.
> >
> >
> >> 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?
I don't think we'd want kjournald to do that. Even if a page was dirtied
by an overwrite, we'd want to write it back during commit, just from a
quality-of-implementation point of view. If we were to leave these pages
unwritten during commit then a post-recovery file could have a mix of
up-to-five-second-old data and up-to-30-seconds-old data.
> > 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.
Newly allocated blocks, you mean?
Just write out the overwritten blocks as well as the new ones, I reckon.
It's what we do now.
-
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]
