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

indeed

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.

why we need a tree? at least for the purpose of keeping blocks unavailable
we'd need just a list as at commit we free them all.

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.

shadow copy holds preallocated blocks

thanks, Alex

--
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