> So a couple of things. First of all, ext4_force_commit() is a very
> expensive call, so calling it twice is really not a good idea.
Yes, Right.
>
> Secondly, in the ext4_collapse_range() you are calling
> ext4_force_commit() before filemap_write_and_wait_range().
>
> /* Call ext4_force_commit to flush all data in case of data=journal. */
> if (ext4_should_journal_data(inode)) {
> ret = ext4_force_commit(inode->i_sb);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
> }
>
> /* Write out all dirty pages */
> ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, offset, -1);
> if (ret)
> return ret;
>
> Shouldn't we reverse these two calls?
Yes, The original problem will occur again if we reverse these calls.
ext4_force_commit will mark the buffers as dirty during commit transcation.
So we should sync it using filemap_write_and_wait_range later.
>
> Finally, I'm wondering if we would be better off creating a new
> explicit EXT4_I(inode)->i_write_mutex which is used to block new
> writes from starting. This could also be used to subsume the
> ext4_aio_mutex.
Right. It is better method. I will check your point. :)
Thanks Ted!!
>
> - 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
