At present, when mounted synchronously or with `chattr +S' in effect,
ext2 syncs the indirect blocks for every new block when extending a
file.
This is not necessary, because a sync is performed on the way out of
generic_file_write(). This will pick up all necessary data from
inode->i_dirty_buffers and inode->i_dirty_data_buffers, and is
sufficient.
The patch removes all the syncing of indirect blocks.
On a non-write-caching scsi disk, an untar of the util-linux tarball
runs three times faster. Writing a 100 megabyte file in one megabyte
chunks speeds up ten times.
The patch also removes the intermediate indirect block syncing on the
truncate() path. Instead, we sync the indirects at a single place, via
inode->i_dirty_buffers. This not only means that the writes (may)
cluster better. It means that we perform much, much less actual I/O
during truncate, because most or all of the indirects will no longer be
needed for the file, and will be invalidated.
fsync() and msync() still work correctly. One side effect of this
patch is that VM-initiated writepage() against a file hole will no
longer block on writeout of indirect blocks. This is good.
--- linux-2.4.18-pre9/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h Mon Sep 17 13:16:30 2001
+++ linux-akpm/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h Tue Feb 12 14:00:11 2002
@@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ struct ext2_inode_info {
__u32 i_faddr;
__u8 i_frag_no;
__u8 i_frag_size;
- __u16 i_osync;
__u32 i_file_acl;
__u32 i_dir_acl;
__u32 i_dtime;
--- linux-2.4.18-pre9/fs/ext2/inode.c Thu Feb 7 13:04:21 2002
+++ linux-akpm/fs/ext2/inode.c Tue Feb 12 14:00:11 2002
@@ -407,10 +407,10 @@ static int ext2_alloc_branch(struct inod
mark_buffer_uptodate(bh, 1);
unlock_buffer(bh);
mark_buffer_dirty_inode(bh, inode);
- if (IS_SYNC(inode) || inode->u.ext2_i.i_osync) {
- ll_rw_block (WRITE, 1, &bh);
- wait_on_buffer (bh);
- }
+ /* We used to sync bh here if IS_SYNC(inode).
+ * But we now rely upon generic_osync_inode()
+ * and b_inode_buffers
+ */
parent = nr;
}
if (n == num)
@@ -469,18 +469,10 @@ static inline int ext2_splice_branch(str
inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
/* had we spliced it onto indirect block? */
- if (where->bh) {
+ if (where->bh)
mark_buffer_dirty_inode(where->bh, inode);
- if (IS_SYNC(inode) || inode->u.ext2_i.i_osync) {
- ll_rw_block (WRITE, 1, &where->bh);
- wait_on_buffer(where->bh);
- }
- }
- if (IS_SYNC(inode) || inode->u.ext2_i.i_osync)
- ext2_sync_inode (inode);
- else
- mark_inode_dirty(inode);
+ mark_inode_dirty(inode);
return 0;
changed:
@@ -837,10 +829,6 @@ void ext2_truncate (struct inode * inode
(u32*)partial->bh->b_data + addr_per_block,
(chain+n-1) - partial);
mark_buffer_dirty_inode(partial->bh, inode);
- if (IS_SYNC(inode)) {
- ll_rw_block (WRITE, 1, &partial->bh);
- wait_on_buffer (partial->bh);
- }
brelse (partial->bh);
partial--;
}
@@ -872,10 +860,12 @@ do_indirects:
;
}
inode->i_mtime = inode->i_ctime = CURRENT_TIME;
- if (IS_SYNC(inode))
+ if (IS_SYNC(inode)) {
+ fsync_inode_buffers(inode);
ext2_sync_inode (inode);
- else
+ } else {
mark_inode_dirty(inode);
+ }
}
void ext2_read_inode (struct inode * inode)
-
On Feb 12, 2002 15:12 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> --- linux-2.4.18-pre9/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h Mon Sep 17 13:16:30 2001
> +++ linux-akpm/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h Tue Feb 12 14:00:11 2002
> @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ struct ext2_inode_info {
> __u32 i_faddr;
> __u8 i_frag_no;
> __u8 i_frag_size;
> - __u16 i_osync;
> __u32 i_file_acl;
> __u32 i_dir_acl;
> __u32 i_dtime;
We should probably leave this in there as a placeholder (with a different
name), just for alignment sake.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
http://sourceforge.net/projects/ext2resize/
http://www-mddsp.enel.ucalgary.ca/People/adilger/
Andreas Dilger wrote:
>
> On Feb 12, 2002 15:12 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > --- linux-2.4.18-pre9/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h Mon Sep 17 13:16:30 2001
> > +++ linux-akpm/include/linux/ext2_fs_i.h Tue Feb 12 14:00:11 2002
> > @@ -25,7 +25,6 @@ struct ext2_inode_info {
> > __u32 i_faddr;
> > __u8 i_frag_no;
> > __u8 i_frag_size;
> > - __u16 i_osync;
> > __u32 i_file_acl;
> > __u32 i_dir_acl;
> > __u32 i_dtime;
>
> We should probably leave this in there as a placeholder (with a different
> name), just for alignment sake.
>
hrm. I'd assumed the compiler would get that right.
Otherwise, the __u8's go to the end of the struct.
-