[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1332415537.18717.21.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 13:25:37 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Ted Tso <tytso@....edu>,
Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] do not use s_dirt in ext4
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 11:33 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > However, if there is _no_ journal, the 'write_super' is initialized, and
> > in many places the 's_dirt' flag is set, and thus VFS services seem to
> > be actively used.
> Which many places are you speaking about? Grep shows 4 places with
> sb->s_dirt = 1;
Well, with 'ext4_mark_super_dirty()' there are still 6 or something
places.
> You remove two of those in your cleanups so only
> __ext4_handle_dirty_super() remains. That is called from 3 (4 after your
> cleanups) places and they happen so rarely (during filesystem resize or
> when we start using some feature on the filesystem) that if you use
> sync_buffer() from all of them, it should be fine.
But AFAIKC, the whole '__ext4_handle_dirty_super()' also falls-back to
marking the superblock as dirty if the file-system has no journal for
some reasons, right?. But I do not really understand what
'ext4_handle_valid()' does. If I grep for 'ext4_handle_dirty_super()' -
there are many places places where it is used, and a few are obviously
for the superblocks.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists