[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4FF3328F.3090301@zabbo.net>
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2012 10:57:35 -0700
From: Zach Brown <zab@...bo.net>
To: Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, Fredrick <fjohnber@...o.com>,
linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
wenqing.lz@...bao.com
Subject: Re: ext4_fallocate
> workload frequently does a uninitialized extent conversion. Thus, now
> we set it to 256 (1MB chunk), and put it into super block in order to
> adjust it dynamically in sysfs.
It's a bit of a tangent, but this caught my eye.
> + /* If extent has less than 2*s_extent_zeroout_len zerout directly */
> + if (ee_len<= 2*sbi->s_extent_zeroout_len&&
> (EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT& split_flag)) {
> - if (allocated<= EXT4_EXT_ZERO_LEN&&
> + if (allocated<= sbi->s_extent_zeroout_len&&
> (EXT4_EXT_MAY_ZEROOUT& split_flag)) {
> } else if ((map->m_lblk - ee_block + map->m_len<
> - EXT4_EXT_ZERO_LEN)&&
> + sbi->s_extent_zeroout_len)&&
I'd be worried about having to verify that nothing bad happened if these
sbi s_extent_zeroout_len references could see different values if they
raced with a sysfs update. Can they do that?
Maybe avoid the risk all together and have an on-stack copy that's only
referenced once at the start?
- z
--
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