From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: Delayed allocation and page_lock vs transaction start ordering Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:33:24 +0200 Message-ID: <20080528093323.GB8289@duck.suse.cz> References: <20080415161430.GC28699@duck.suse.cz> <20080521082109.GA18746@skywalker> <20080526172124.GK32407@duck.suse.cz> <20080526180043.GB14718@skywalker> <20080527124312.GG5178@duck.suse.cz> <20080527151128.GA13237@skywalker> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, sandeen@redhat.com To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Return-path: Received: from styx.suse.cz ([82.119.242.94]:55142 "EHLO mail.suse.cz" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751390AbYE1JdZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 May 2008 05:33:25 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080527151128.GA13237@skywalker> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue 27-05-08 20:41:28, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 02:43:12PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > On Mon 26-05-08 23:30:43, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > > > > I have got another question now related to page_mkwrite. AFAIU writepage > > > writeout dirty buffer_heads. It also looks at whether the pages are > > > dirty or not. In the page_mkwrite callback both are not true. ie we call > > > set_page_dirty from do_wp_page after calling page_mkwrite. I haven't > > > verified whether the above is correct or not. Just thinking reading the > > > code. > > Writepage call itself doesn't look at whether the page is dirty or not - > > that flag is already cleared when writepage is called. You are right that > > the page is marked dirty only after page_mkwrite is called - the meaning of > > page_mkwrite() call is roughly "someone wants to do the first write to this > > page via mmap, prepare filesystem for that". But we don't really care > > whether the page is dirty or not - we know it carries correct data (it is > > uptodate) and so we can write it if we want (and need). > > > > I am looking at __block_write_full_page and we have > > if (!buffer_mapped(bh) && buffer_dirty(bh)) { > WARN_ON(bh->b_size != blocksize); > err = get_block(inode, block, bh, 1); > if (err) > > ie, we do get_block only if the buffer_head is dirty. So I am bit > doubtful whether we are actually allocating blocks via page_mkwrite. Good catch, we should mark unmapped buffers dirty before calling writepage. Actually, if the page didn't have any buffers, block_write_full_page() will create them all dirty so that's probably why I didn't hit it in my testing but it's definitely safer to mark them dirty explicitely. Thanks. It is enough to change ext4_bh_mapped() to something like: static int ext4_bh_prepare_fill(handle_t *handle, struct buffer_head *bh) { if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) { /* * Mark buffer as dirty so that block_write_full_page() * writes it */ set_buffer_dirty(bh); return 1; } return 0; } Should I send you an updated patch with this change and the changes we spoke about yesterday, or just an incremental changes which you will fold yourself into the big one? Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR