[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100526134603.GA3494@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 15:46:03 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: tytso@....edu
Cc: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@...nvz.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
jack@...e.cz, aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: restart ext4_ext_remove_space() after
transaction restart V2
On Wed 26-05-10 09:23:52, tytso@....edu wrote:
> One more thing. Why do you need EXT4_STATE_EXT_TRUNC?
>
> The only place which tests it in any kind of real way is
> ext4_ext_truncate_extend_restart(), and it is only called by one
> function, ext4_ext_rm_leaf(), and *it* is only called in one place,
> inside ext4_ext_remove_space(), and *it* surronds the call with
> ext4_set_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_EXT_TRUNC) and
> ext4_clear_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_EXT_TRUNC).
>
> And while a truncate is happening, no other block allocation can
> happen, so the test in ext4_ext_map_blocks() doesn't seem to do much.
This is false. As soon as we drop i_data_sem, allocation *can* happen
from writeback path. Because truncate has already invalidated all the pages
past new_size, it must be for some page before new_size but still it could
modify an extent tree node we passed through when looking up our extent...
> (It only clears STATE_EXT_TRUNC if it is set and if the flags
> EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_CREATE is set. I'm not sure what the point of that
> is, either.)
I think the idea Dmitry tries to implement is:
When allocation like I describe above happens while we droppped i_data_sem,
restart the whole truncation.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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