[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090831123313.GA21973@skywalker.linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 18:03:14 +0530
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
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 08:24:48AM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> 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.
If the database is not being updated via a write(2), then even though
the blocks are already allocated, we won't find buffer_heads attached to the page.
ie, page_buffers(page) will be NULL
The page_mkwrite -> write_begin path would be allocating the buffer_heads
and attaching them to the page. So even in the above case we will be
doing write_begin -> write_end. That is, it is similar to the (a) i wrote
above.
>
> 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
-aneesh
--
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