[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090826022445.GA32712@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2009 22:24:45 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: cmm@...ibm.com, sandeen@...hat.com, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Drop mapped buffer_head check during page_mkwrite
On Tue, Aug 25, 2009 at 07:52:59PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Inorder to check whether the buffer_heads are mapped we need
> to hold page lock. Otherwise a reclaim can cleanup the attached
> buffer_heads. Instead of taking page lock and check whether
> buffer_heads are mapped we let the write_begin/write_end callback
> does the equivalent. It does have a performance impact in that we
> are doing more work if we the buffer_heads are already mapped.
I'm not sure I understand the commit description. From the patch you
are removing the check to see if all of the buffers are mapped. But
the patch isn't moving the check to ext4_write_begin() or
ext4_write_end(). Are you saying the check is already in
ext4_write_begin()? It doesn't seem to be in ext4_write_end().
I see that we do call write_page_buffers() in ext4_write_begin(), and
in do_journal_get_write_access() we do check to see if the buffers are
present. But if they aren't, we don't return an error; we just fail
request journal write access for the buffer head.
Am I missing something? This patch doesn't feel complete, or the
commit description is very confusing....
- Ted
--
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