tytso@xxxxxxx writes:
> On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 06:28:29PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>> tytso@xxxxxxx writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 08:31:11AM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
>> >> @@ -2480,6 +2480,11 @@ static int ext4_ext_remove_space(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t start)
>> >> out:
>> >> ext4_ext_drop_refs(path);
>> >> kfree(path);
>> >> + if (err == EAGAIN) {
>> >
>> > Surely this should be "err == -EAGAIN", no? I'm curious how this
>> > patch worked for with this typo....
>> As usually it fix one thing, and broke another :(.
>> So in case of alloc/truncate restart truncate will be aborted,
>> so i_size != i_disk_size which must be caught by fsck (my test run
>> it every time) but this never happens which is very strange.
>> The only reason i can explain this that truncate was called second
>> time which is probable due to should_retry_alloc logic.
>
> Does adding the optimization I suggested help? I was nervous because
> we don't immediately abort the loop after the rm_leaf function returns
> -EAGAIN.
Sorry, but seems i don't get your idea.
we have following code:
2394: while (i >= 0 && err == 0) {
if (i == depth) {
/* this is leaf block */
err = ext4_ext_rm_leaf(handle, inode, path,
start);
/* root level has p_bh == NULL, brelse() eats this */
brelse(path[i].p_bh);
path[i].p_bh = NULL;
i--;
continue;
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<<< So if rm_leaf has failed we will quit from while loop
}
>And disentangling the code to free the buffer references
> from the other processing that was happening was difficult, and I was
> worried about other potential side effects when the code tried to
> modify blocks that were already added to the transaction.
>
> - Ted
--
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
