Re: Potential bug in mballoc --- reusing data blocks before txn commit

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Theodore Tso wrote:
On Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 12:21:06AM +0400, Alex Tomas wrote:
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
I'll also note that a linked list of extents that should be freed would
also be useful for implementing the trim command for SSD's --- and that
this would be much more cleanly implemented via a callback from the jbd2
layer when a commit is finished, rather than the current
ext4_mb_poll_new_transaction() mechanism.
yes, polling is a hack as we lost commit callback long ago.

Yeah, I know Andrian Bunk strikes again....  but the right answer is
to ressurect that code and add it back.

In any case, is there a reason why the mballoc.c is using its current
scheme, and not using kj->b_commited_data as in the original balloc.c
code?  And was there a reason why you decided that it wasn't necessary
to protect freed data blocks from being reused until the transaction was
committed?
I think we don't really care about data consistency much. so I tried to save
some memory (given amount of metadata is smaller usually).

Well, we need to keep this information for the SSD Trim command
anyway; so probably the right approach is to keep a red/black tree of
extents that need to be freed, and then when the commit callback is
called, we can update the appropriate mballoc data structures and call
the SSD trim command if necessary.

That restores the data consistency that we have with ext3, and it also
gives us the SSD trim functionality, which we need for both ext3 and
ext4.  In fact, the information we need in both cases is 100% identical.

The other thing which I should check is that if we are using this
scheme, I think we shouldn't need to keep the shadow copy of the block
bitmap buffers any more.  I would imagine we still need them for the
inode bitmaps, for the same reason, though.

     	      	  		     	 - Ted


I don't disagree with any of the above, just want to point out that TRIM has a SCSI T10 cousin that is very similar (used to implement thinly provisioned luns). We should make sure as much as possible to make our file system level support work for both...

ric

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

[Index of Archives]     [Reiser Filesystem Development]     [Ceph FS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux FS]     [Yosemite National Park]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [Linux Media]

  Powered by Linux