[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090831122448.GG20822@mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:24:48 -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 -V2] ext4: Drop mapped buffer_head check during
page_mkwrite
On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 12:00:06PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Below are the possibilities i looked at
>
> a) mmap with no parallel write to the same offset. That would mean
> we don't have attached buffer heads because nobody attach buffer
> heads to the page.
>
> b) mmap happening to the hole. The buffer heads are not mapped.
>
> c) mmap with parallel write to the same offset. The parallel write
> did attach mapped buffer heads to the same page. So we should find
> all buffer heads mapped in the above case.
>
> if we will find buffer heads already be mapped in many workloads then
> i guess it make sense to add page lock. It will also avoid the
> journal_start that we do in write_begin. I will redo the patch
The usage case I was worried about is the one where we are mmap'ing an
existing file (say, like an Oracle or DB2 table space, or a berkdb
database file), and we are writing into already allocated blocks. In
that case (which does use these code paths, right?) the second time we
write a particular page, the buffer heads will already be mapped.
For database applications where we aren't loading a table, but just
making changes to an already instantiated table, the buffer heads
would be mapped most of the time, would they not?
- 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