On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 15:11 +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Wed 04-07-12 15:21:52, Artem Bityutskiy wrote: > > From: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > This patch changes the '__ext4_handle_dirty_super()' function which is used > > by ext4 to update the superblock via the journal in the following cases: > > > > 1. When creating the first large file on a file system without > > EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_LARGE_FILE feature. > > 2. When re-sizing the file-system. > > 3. When creating an xattr on a file-system without the > > EXT4_FEATURE_COMPAT_EXT_ATTR feature. > > 4. When adding or deleting an orphan (because we update the 's_last_orphan' > > superblock field). > > > > This function, however, falls back to just marking the superblock as dirty > > if the file-system has no journal. This means that we delay the actual > > superblock I/O submission by 5 seconds (roughly speaking). Namely, the > > 'sync_supers()' kernel thread will call 'ext4_write_super()' later, where > > we actually will submit the superblock down to the media. > > > > However: > > 1. For cases 1-3 it does not add any value to delay the I/O submission. These > > events are rare and we may just commit submit the superblock for > > asynchronous I/O right away. > > 2. For case 4 - similarly, not terribly frequent event in most of workloads. > > It should be good enough to just submit asynchronous superblock write-out. > Well, it happens for every inode being truncated / deleted to it can be > rather frequent. That's why I wanted to have now == 1 case everywhere - > i.e. just recompute the checksum and do mark_buffer_dirty(). I'd just > remove the 'now' test in this patch and then in patch 5 remove the now > argument from the function and callers as you did. It looked logical to me to use 'ext4_commit_super()' always and remove 'now' and marking the buffer dirty directly. Just because I thought the speed difference should be nearly 0, and 'ext4_commit_super()' is doing some error checking. But you seem to suggest to do the opposite, and I do not understand why would that be better. So I dropped this change so far. I've sent v5 where I basically only changed the commit message in patch 3 and dropped patch 5. In patch 3 I've explicitly indicated that we'll do more checksum calculations, but I think this is OK acceptable. Thanks! -- Best Regards, Artem Bityutskiy
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
