All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 08:47:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200325154759.GY29339@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200325152113.GK53396@mit.edu>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:21:13AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 02:20:57AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >  	spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > >  
> > > -	if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME)
> > > -		mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode);
> > > +	/* This was a lazytime expiration; we need to tell the file system */
> > > +	if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED && inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode)
> > > +		inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, I_DIRTY_SYNC);
> > 
> > I think this needs a very clear comment explaining why we don't go
> > through __mark_inode_dirty.
> 
> I can take the explanation which is in the git commit description and
> move it into the comment.
> 
> > But as said before I'd rather have a new lazytime_expired operation that
> > makes it very clear what is happening.  We currenly have 4 file systems
> > (ext4, f2fs, ubifs and xfs) that support lazytime, so this won't really
> > be a major churn.
> 
> Again, I believe patch #2 does what you want; if it doesn't can you
> explain why passing I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED to s_op->dirty_inode() isn't
> "a new lazytime expired operation that makes very clear what is
> happening"?
> 
> I separated out patch #1 and patch #2 because patch #1 preserves
> current behavior, and patch #2 modifies XFS code, which I don't want
> to push Linus without an XFS reviewed-by.
> 
> N.b.  None of the other file systems required a change for patch #2,
> so if you want, we can have the XFS tree carry patch #2, and/or
> combine that with whatever other simplifying changes that you want.
> Or I can combine patch #1 and patch #2, with an XFS Reviewed-by, and
> send it through the ext4 tree.
> 
> What's your pleasure?

TBH while I'm pretty sure this does actually maintain more or less the
same behavior on xfs, I prefer Christoph's explicit ->lazytime_expired
approach[1] over squinting at bitflag manipulations.

(It also took me a while to realize that this patch duo even existed, as
it was kinda buried in its parent thread...)

--D

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200325122825.1086872-1-hch@lst.de/T/#t

> 
> 					- Ted
> 

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>,
	Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2020 08:47:59 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200325154759.GY29339@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200325152113.GK53396@mit.edu>

On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:21:13AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 02:20:57AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > >  	spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> > >  
> > > -	if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME)
> > > -		mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode);
> > > +	/* This was a lazytime expiration; we need to tell the file system */
> > > +	if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED && inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode)
> > > +		inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, I_DIRTY_SYNC);
> > 
> > I think this needs a very clear comment explaining why we don't go
> > through __mark_inode_dirty.
> 
> I can take the explanation which is in the git commit description and
> move it into the comment.
> 
> > But as said before I'd rather have a new lazytime_expired operation that
> > makes it very clear what is happening.  We currenly have 4 file systems
> > (ext4, f2fs, ubifs and xfs) that support lazytime, so this won't really
> > be a major churn.
> 
> Again, I believe patch #2 does what you want; if it doesn't can you
> explain why passing I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED to s_op->dirty_inode() isn't
> "a new lazytime expired operation that makes very clear what is
> happening"?
> 
> I separated out patch #1 and patch #2 because patch #1 preserves
> current behavior, and patch #2 modifies XFS code, which I don't want
> to push Linus without an XFS reviewed-by.
> 
> N.b.  None of the other file systems required a change for patch #2,
> so if you want, we can have the XFS tree carry patch #2, and/or
> combine that with whatever other simplifying changes that you want.
> Or I can combine patch #1 and patch #2, with an XFS Reviewed-by, and
> send it through the ext4 tree.
> 
> What's your pleasure?

TBH while I'm pretty sure this does actually maintain more or less the
same behavior on xfs, I prefer Christoph's explicit ->lazytime_expired
approach[1] over squinting at bitflag manipulations.

(It also took me a while to realize that this patch duo even existed, as
it was kinda buried in its parent thread...)

--D

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200325122825.1086872-1-hch@lst.de/T/#t

> 
> 					- Ted
> 


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2020-03-25 15:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-03-06  0:45 lazytime causing inodes to remain dirty after sync? Eric Biggers
2020-03-06  0:45 ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2020-03-07  2:00 ` [PATCH] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration Theodore Ts'o
2020-03-07  2:00   ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Ts'o
2020-03-11  3:20   ` Eric Biggers
2020-03-11  3:20     ` [f2fs-dev] " Eric Biggers
2020-03-11 12:57     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-11 12:57       ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-12  0:07       ` Dave Chinner
2020-03-12  0:07         ` [f2fs-dev] " Dave Chinner
2020-03-12 14:34         ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-12 14:34           ` [f2fs-dev] " Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-12 22:39           ` Dave Chinner
2020-03-12 22:39             ` [f2fs-dev] " Dave Chinner
2020-03-20  2:46           ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-20  2:46             ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-20  2:52             ` [PATCH 1/2] " Theodore Ts'o
2020-03-20  2:52               ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Ts'o
2020-03-20  2:52               ` [PATCH 2/2] writeback, xfs: call dirty_inode() with I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED when appropriate Theodore Ts'o
2020-03-20  2:52                 ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Ts'o
2020-03-23 17:58                 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-23 17:58                   ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-24  8:37                   ` Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-24  8:37                     ` [f2fs-dev] " Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-24 18:43                     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-24 18:43                       ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-25  9:20               ` [PATCH 1/2] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-25  9:20                 ` [f2fs-dev] " Christoph Hellwig
2020-03-25 15:21                 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-25 15:21                   ` [f2fs-dev] " Theodore Y. Ts'o
2020-03-25 15:47                   ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2020-03-25 15:47                     ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-03-11 23:54     ` [PATCH] " Dave Chinner
2020-03-11 23:54       ` [f2fs-dev] " Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20200325154759.GY29339@magnolia \
    --to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=ebiggers@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=richard@nod.at \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 1/2] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.