From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] set_page_buffer_dirty should skip unmapped buffers Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2006 17:34:49 +0200 Message-ID: <20060906153449.GC18281@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> References: <1157125829.30578.6.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <1157128342.30578.14.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060901101801.7845bca2.akpm@osdl.org> <1157472702.23501.12.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> <20060906124719.GA11868@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz> <1157555559.23501.25.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Andrew Morton , Anton Altaparmakov , sct@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel , lkml , ext4 Return-path: To: Badari Pulavarty Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1157555559.23501.25.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org > On Wed, 2006-09-06 at 14:47 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > Andrew, what should we do ? Do you suggest handling this in jbd > > > itself (like this patch) ? > > Actually that part of commit code needs rewrite anyway (and after that > > rewrite you get rid of ll_rw_block()) because of other problems - the > > code assumes that whenever buffer is locked, it is being written to disk > > which is not true... I have some preliminary patches for that but they > > are not very nice and so far I didn't have enough time to find a nice > > solution. > > Are you okay with current not-so-elegant fix ? Actually I don't quite understand how it can happen what you describe (so probably I missed something). How it can happen that some buffers are unmapped while we are committing them? journal_unmap_buffers() checks whether we are not committing truncated buffers and if so, it does not do anything to such buffers... Bye Honza -- Jan Kara SuSE CR Labs