Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755190Ab3CLI3K (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:29:10 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-f46.google.com ([209.85.160.46]:34066 "EHLO mail-pb0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753125Ab3CLI3H (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Mar 2013 04:29:07 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87620y2d68.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> References: <1362664617-3825-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@gmail.com> <87sj44ac82.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> <87620y2d68.fsf@devron.myhome.or.jp> Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:29:05 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] fat: editions to support fat_fallocate From: Namjae Jeon To: OGAWA Hirofumi Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, abartlet@samba.org, Namjae Jeon , Ravishankar N Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2067 Lines: 52 2013/3/12, OGAWA Hirofumi : > Namjae Jeon writes: > >>> This choose ->release(). BTW, we would also be able to do this only >>> ->evict_inode(), although I'm not thinking yet which one is better. >>> >>> If you had conclusion, it would be nice to explain it. >> evict_inode() will be called only when we unlink the file or if inode >> is evicted from cache. >> As we discussed with you before, We considered preallocated blocks is >> discarded on all close file cases(unlink and muliple openning file). >> So we think it would be better to do this in ->release(). > > If so, probably, I didn't clear my opinion/suggestion, or misled > you. Sorry about it. > > My opinion/suggestion is, "it should be before umount()". > I.e. fallocate() doesn't have any affect to FAT on clean state (clean > umount). > > To clear my state, I don't have strong opinion about implementation yet. > For example, about ->release() or ->evict_inode(). > > So, if you had reason to use ->release() over "we discussed", it would > be good. (Or, if you still didn't have reasons, we would be better to > think about it) We considered all the possible points where we can release the pre-allocated blocks. As the "pre-allocation" is file based, we think it need to have release mechanism. In case of evict, Eviction will either happen when the file is removed or the inode is evicted from the cache by memory pressure when no references are present for that file. It is good that evict will be triggered in umount. but there is a risk that umount time can be increased. And It show users inconsistent result. e.g sometime user can not get file discarded fallocated blocks by memory pressure. Let me know your opinion. Thanks. > > Thanks. > -- > OGAWA Hirofumi > -- 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/