[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1208282932.3636.9.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:08:52 -0700
From: Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, sandeen@...hat.com
Subject: Re: Delayed allocation and page_lock vs transaction start ordering
On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 18:14 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I've ported my patch inversing locking ordering of page_lock and
> transaction start to ext4 (on top of ext4 patch queue). Everything except
> delayed allocation is converted (the patch is below for interested
> readers). The question is how to proceed with delayed allocation. Its
> current implementation in VFS is designed to work well with the old
> ordering (page lock first, then start a transaction). We could bend it to
> work with the new locking ordering but I really see no point since ext4 is
> the only user.
I think the plan is port the changes to ext2/3/JFS and support delayed
allocation on those filesystems.
> Also XFS has AFAIK ordering first start transaction, then
> lock pages so if we should ever merge delayed alloc implementations the new
> ordering would make it easier.
> So what do people think here? Do you agree with reimplementing current
> mpage_da_... functions?
It worth a try, but I could not see how to bend delayed allocation to
work the new ordering:( With delayed allocation Ext4 gets into
writepage() directly with page locked, but we need to start transaction
to do block allocation...:(
I guess this reserve locking ordering allows support writepages() for
ext3/4? What other the benefits?
Regards,
Mingming
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists