Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <5A1D0003.6060605@huawei.com>
Date:   Tue, 28 Nov 2017 14:19:47 +0800
From:   alex chen <alex.chen@huawei.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To:     Gang He <ghe@suse.com>
CC:     <jlbec@evilplan.org>, <hch@lst.de>, <ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com>,
        "Goldwyn Rodrigues" <RGoldwyn@suse.com>, <mfasheh@versity.com>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function
References: <1511775987-841-1-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com> <1511775987-841-3-git-send-email-ghe@suse.com> <5A1CC7BC.3060309@huawei.com> <5A1D65C4020000F90009ACE1@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A1D65C4020000F90009ACE1@prv-mh.provo.novell.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Hi Gang,

On 2017/11/28 13:33, Gang He wrote:
> Hello Alex,
> 
> 
>>>>
>> Hi Gang,
>>
>> On 2017/11/27 17:46, Gang He wrote:
>>> Add ocfs2_overwrite_io function, which is used to judge if
>>> overwrite allocated blocks, otherwise, the write will bring extra
>>> block allocation overhead.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Gang He <ghe@suse.com>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c | 67 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>  fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h |  3 +++
>>>  2 files changed, 70 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
>>> index e4719e0..98bf325 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.c
>>> @@ -832,6 +832,73 @@ int ocfs2_fiemap(struct inode *inode, struct 
>> fiemap_extent_info *fieinfo,
>>>  	return ret;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +/* Is IO overwriting allocated blocks? */
>>> +int ocfs2_overwrite_io(struct inode *inode, u64 map_start, u64 map_len,
>>> +		       int wait)
>>> +{
>>> +	int ret = 0, is_last;
>>> +	u32 mapping_end, cpos;
>>> +	struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(inode->i_sb);
>>> +	struct buffer_head *di_bh = NULL;
>>> +	struct ocfs2_extent_rec rec;
>>> +
>>> +	if (wait)
>>> +		ret = ocfs2_inode_lock(inode, &di_bh, 0);
>>> +	else
>>> +		ret = ocfs2_try_inode_lock(inode, &di_bh, 0);
>>> +	if (ret)
>>> +		goto out;
>>> +
>>> +	if (wait)
>>> +		down_read(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem);
>>> +	else {
>>> +		if (!down_read_trylock(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem)) {
>>> +			ret = -EAGAIN;
>>> +			goto out_unlock1;
>>> +		}
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if ((OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_dyn_features & OCFS2_INLINE_DATA_FL) &&
>>> +	   ((map_start + map_len) <= i_size_read(inode)))
>>> +		goto out_unlock2;
>>> +
>>> +	cpos = map_start >> osb->s_clustersize_bits;
>>> +	mapping_end = ocfs2_clusters_for_bytes(inode->i_sb,
>>> +					       map_start + map_len);
>>> +	is_last = 0;
>>> +	while (cpos < mapping_end && !is_last) {
>>> +		ret = ocfs2_get_clusters_nocache(inode, di_bh, cpos,
>>> +						 NULL, &rec, &is_last);
>>> +		if (ret) {
>>> +			mlog_errno(ret);
>>> +			goto out_unlock2;
>>> +		}
>>> +
>>> +		if (rec.e_blkno == 0ULL)
>>> +			break;
>> I think here the blocks is not overwrite, because the hold is found and the 
>> blocks
>> should be allocated.
> If the rec.e_blkno == NULL, this means there is a hole.
> The file hole means that these blocks are not allocated, it does not like unwritten block.
> The unwritten blocks means that these blocks are allocated, but still have not been unwritten. 
> 
If we break the loop when we find the hold, out of this function we will allocate the blocks in
ocfs2_file_write_iter()->..->ocfs2_direct_IO->__blockdev_direct_IO->..->ocfs2_dio_wr_get_block()
->ocfs2_write_begin_nolock. Does this violate the semantics of 'IOCB_NOWAIT';

BTW, should we consider the down_write() and ocfs2_inode_lock() in ocfs2_dio_wr_get_block() when
the flag 'IOCB_NOWAIT' is set;

>>> +
>>> +		if (rec.e_flags & OCFS2_EXT_REFCOUNTED)
>>> +			break;
>>> +
>>> +		cpos = le32_to_cpu(rec.e_cpos) +
>>> +			le16_to_cpu(rec.e_leaf_clusters);
>>> +	}
>>> +
>>> +	if (cpos < mapping_end)
>>> +		ret = 1;
>>> +
>>> +out_unlock2:
>>
>> I think the 'out_up_read' is more readable than the 'out_unlock2' .
> Ok, I will use more readable tag here.
>>
>>> +	brelse(di_bh);
>>> +
>>> +	up_read(&OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_alloc_sem);
>>> +
>>> +out_unlock1:
>>
>> We should release buffer head here.
>>
>>> +	ocfs2_inode_unlock(inode, 0);
>>> +
>>> +out:
>>> +	return (ret ? 0 : 1);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>>  int ocfs2_seek_data_hole_offset(struct file *file, loff_t *offset, int 
>> whence)
>>>  {
>>>  	struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h
>>> index 67ea57d..fd9e86a 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h
>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/extent_map.h
>>> @@ -53,6 +53,9 @@ int ocfs2_extent_map_get_blocks(struct inode *inode, u64 
>> v_blkno, u64 *p_blkno,
>>>  int ocfs2_fiemap(struct inode *inode, struct fiemap_extent_info *fieinfo,
>>>  		 u64 map_start, u64 map_len);
>>>  
>>> +int ocfs2_overwrite_io(struct inode *inode, u64 map_start, u64 map_len,
>>> +		       int wait);
>>> +
>>>  int ocfs2_seek_data_hole_offset(struct file *file, loff_t *offset, int 
>> origin);
>>>  
>>>  int ocfs2_xattr_get_clusters(struct inode *inode, u32 v_cluster,
>>>
> 
> 
> .
> 


From 1585287195181835940@xxx Tue Nov 28 05:41:22 +0000 2017
X-GM-THRID: 1585212205986077742
X-Gmail-Labels: Inbox,Category Forums,HistoricalUnread