From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" Subject: Re: [PATCH 08/11] vfs: Unmap underlying metadata of new data buffers only when buffer is mapped Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 15:45:54 +0530 Message-ID: <20090528101554.GB27978@skywalker> References: <1243429268-3028-1-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <1243429268-3028-9-git-send-email-jack@suse.cz> <20090527153559.GB19989@skywalker> <20090528094434.GG29199@duck.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: LKML , npiggin@suse.de, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from e28smtp05.in.ibm.com ([59.145.155.5]:59415 "EHLO e28smtp05.in.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751137AbZE1KP6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 May 2009 06:15:58 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090528094434.GG29199@duck.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 11:44:34AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 27-05-09 21:05:59, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote: > > On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 03:01:05PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > > > When we do delayed allocation of some buffer, we want to signal to VFS that > > > the buffer is new (set buffer_new) so that it properly zeros out everything. > > > But we don't have the buffer mapped yet so we cannot really unmap underlying > > > metadata in this state. Make VFS avoid doing unmapping of metadata when the > > > buffer is not yet mapped. > > > > ... > > > @@ -2683,7 +2685,7 @@ int nobh_write_begin(struct file *file, struct address_space *mapping, > > > goto failed; > > > if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) > > > is_mapped_to_disk = 0; > > > - if (buffer_new(bh)) > > > + if (buffer_new(bh) && buffer_mapped(bh)) > > > unmap_underlying_metadata(bh->b_bdev, bh->b_blocknr); > > > if (PageUptodate(page)) { > > > set_buffer_uptodate(bh); > > > > Both xfs and ext4 return mapped delay buffer_head when we do a get_block > > with delayed allocation in write_begin phase. > Yeah, I knew about ext4 doing this. Thanks for pointing this out. I > wanted to trigger a separate discussion about this and similar problems - > the current state of buffer bits is quite messy (I think Ted complained > about this as well recently) and we should somehow clean it up. > In this particular case: What's the point in returning the buffer mapped? > It does not make any sence logically (block *does not* have any physical > location assigned) and technically you have to map it to some fake block > and later remap it correctly when you do block allocation. So maybe I'm > missing some good reason but from what I can see, it just does not make > sence... Marking it mapped make sure we don't do multiple get_block calls for every write. For each write in write_begin path we do a get_block call if the buffer is not mapped. (__block_prepare_write have more details.) -aneesh