From: tytso@mit.edu Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/6 v2] ext4: Update inode i_size after the preallocation Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:02:01 -0400 Message-ID: <20140317030201.GE14162@thunk.org> References: <1393355679-11160-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> <1393355679-11160-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com To: Lukas Czerner Return-path: Received: from imap.thunk.org ([74.207.234.97]:42323 "EHLO imap.thunk.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756004AbaCQDCK (ORCPT ); Sun, 16 Mar 2014 23:02:10 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1393355679-11160-2-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 08:14:34PM +0100, Lukas Czerner wrote: > Currently in ext4_fallocate we would update inode size, c_time and sync > the file with every partial allocation which is entirely unnecessary. It > is true that if the crash happens in the middle of truncate we might end > up with unchanged i size, or c_time which I do not think is really a > problem - it does not mean file system corruption in any way. Note that > xfs is doing things the same way e.g. update all of the mentioned after > the allocation is done. > > This commit moves all the updates after the allocation is done. In > addition we also need to change m_time as not only inode has been change > bot also data regions might have changed (unwritten extents). However > m_time will be only updated when i_size changed. > > Also we do not need to be paranoid about changing the c_time only if the > actual allocation have happened, we can change it even if we try to > allocate only to find out that there are already block allocated. It's > not really a big deal and it will save us some additional complexity. > > Also use ext4_debug, instead of ext4_warning in #ifdef EXT4FS_DEBUG > section. > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner Further testing has shown that this patch (applied on top of the ext4 dev branch) is causing a regression failure of xfstests shared/243. Could you take a look? - Ted