[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120704131124.GA29954@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:11:24 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Cc: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Linux FS Maling List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Maling List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ext4 Mailing List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv4 3/5] ext4: remove unnecessary superblock dirtying
On Wed 04-07-12 15:21:52, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
>
> This patch changes the '__ext4_handle_dirty_super()' function which is used
> by ext4 to update the superblock via the journal in the following cases:
>
> 1. When creating the first large file on a file system without
> EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_LARGE_FILE feature.
> 2. When re-sizing the file-system.
> 3. When creating an xattr on a file-system without the
> EXT4_FEATURE_COMPAT_EXT_ATTR feature.
> 4. When adding or deleting an orphan (because we update the 's_last_orphan'
> superblock field).
>
> This function, however, falls back to just marking the superblock as dirty
> if the file-system has no journal. This means that we delay the actual
> superblock I/O submission by 5 seconds (roughly speaking). Namely, the
> 'sync_supers()' kernel thread will call 'ext4_write_super()' later, where
> we actually will submit the superblock down to the media.
>
> However:
> 1. For cases 1-3 it does not add any value to delay the I/O submission. These
> events are rare and we may just commit submit the superblock for
> asynchronous I/O right away.
> 2. For case 4 - similarly, not terribly frequent event in most of workloads.
> It should be good enough to just submit asynchronous superblock write-out.
Well, it happens for every inode being truncated / deleted to it can be
rather frequent. That's why I wanted to have now == 1 case everywhere -
i.e. just recompute the checksum and do mark_buffer_dirty(). I'd just
remove the 'now' test in this patch and then in patch 5 remove the now
argument from the function and callers as you did.
Honza
>
> This patch also removes 's_dirt' condition on the unmount path because we never
> set it anymore, so we should not test it.
>
> Tested using xfstests for both journalled and non-journalled ext4.
>
> Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 1 +
> fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.c | 2 +-
> fs/ext4/super.c | 5 ++---
> 3 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> index 0c4042e..b2439d5 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> @@ -2041,6 +2041,7 @@ extern int ext4_superblock_csum_verify(struct super_block *sb,
> struct ext4_super_block *es);
> extern void ext4_superblock_csum_set(struct super_block *sb,
> struct ext4_super_block *es);
> +extern int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync);
> extern void *ext4_kvmalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags);
> extern void *ext4_kvzalloc(size_t size, gfp_t flags);
> extern void ext4_kvfree(void *ptr);
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.c b/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.c
> index 90f7c2e..27354df 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.c
> @@ -156,6 +156,6 @@ int __ext4_handle_dirty_super(const char *where, unsigned int line,
> (struct ext4_super_block *)bh->b_data);
> mark_buffer_dirty(bh);
> } else
> - sb->s_dirt = 1;
> + err = ext4_commit_super(sb, 0);
> return err;
> }
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> index eb7aa3e..9b26ba0 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> @@ -63,7 +63,6 @@ static struct ext4_features *ext4_feat;
> static int ext4_load_journal(struct super_block *, struct ext4_super_block *,
> unsigned long journal_devnum);
> static int ext4_show_options(struct seq_file *seq, struct dentry *root);
> -static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync);
> static void ext4_mark_recovery_complete(struct super_block *sb,
> struct ext4_super_block *es);
> static void ext4_clear_journal_err(struct super_block *sb,
> @@ -896,7 +895,7 @@ static void ext4_put_super(struct super_block *sb)
> EXT4_CLEAR_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_RECOVER);
> es->s_state = cpu_to_le16(sbi->s_mount_state);
> }
> - if (sb->s_dirt || !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))
> + if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))
> ext4_commit_super(sb, 1);
>
> if (sbi->s_proc) {
> @@ -4155,7 +4154,7 @@ static int ext4_load_journal(struct super_block *sb,
> return 0;
> }
>
> -static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
> +int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
> {
> struct ext4_super_block *es = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_es;
> struct buffer_head *sbh = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_sbh;
> --
> 1.7.7.6
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists