From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758171Ab2CVNm6 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:42:58 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37967 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756382Ab2CVNm4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Mar 2012 09:42:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2012 14:42:53 +0100 From: Jan Kara To: Artem Bityutskiy Cc: Jan Kara , Ted Tso , Ext4 Mailing List , Linux FS Maling List , Linux Kernel Maling List Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/9] do not use s_dirt in ext4 Message-ID: <20120322134253.GA19587@quack.suse.cz> References: <1332254489-2300-1-git-send-email-dedekind1@gmail.com> <20120322095342.GC14485@quack.suse.cz> <1332410747.18717.12.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> <20120322103309.GA14484@quack.suse.cz> <1332415537.18717.21.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1332415537.18717.21.camel@sauron.fi.intel.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu 22-03-12 13:25:37, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > 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? Yes. And I wrote that if you do sync_buffer(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_sbh) instead of marking superblock dirty, it would be fine. > 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. ext4_handle_valid() is false if and only if ext4 is in no-journal mode. If I grep for ext4_handle_dirty_super() I see: jack@quack:~/source/linux-fs/fs/ext4> grep "ext4_handle_dirty_super" *.c ext4_jbd2.c:int __ext4_handle_dirty_super(const char *where, unsigned int line, resize.c: err = ext4_handle_dirty_super(handle, sb); resize.c: ext4_handle_dirty_super(handle, sb); xattr.c: ext4_handle_dirty_super(handle, sb); So not really many cases... Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR