[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <871ve0qb59.fsf@openvz.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 11:38:58 +0400
From: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, tytso@....edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Do not zeroout uninitialized extents beyond i_size
"Aneesh Kumar K. V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 21:22:28 +0400, Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org> wrote:
>> Zerrout trick allow us to optimize cases where it is more reasonable
>> to explicitly zeroout extent and mark it as initialized instead of
>> splitting to several small ones.
>> But this optimization is not acceptable is extent is beyond i_size
>> Because it is not possible to have initialized blocks after i_size.
>> Fsck treat this as incorrect inode size.
>>
>
> With commit c8d46e41bc744c8fa0092112af3942fcd46c8b18 if we set
> EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL we should be able to have blocks beyond i_size.
> May be the zero out path should set the flag instead of doing all these
> changes. Zero-out is already complex with all the ENOSPC related
> consideration. I guess we should try to keep it simple.
For initialized extent beyond i_size? I've check fsck and seems that
is truly possible. So this optimization allow us to avoid some
bad EIO situations. But we have to rework ext_get_blocks( ,create == 1)
to clear EXT4_EOFBLOCKS_FL if last block of latest_extent is requested.
I'll handle this.
>
> -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
--
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