Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> The cached delalloc or hole extent should be trimed to the map->map_len
> if we map delalloc blocks in ext4_da_map_blocks().
Why do you say the cached delalloc extent should also be trimemd to
m_len? Because we are only inserting delalloc blocks of
min(hole_len, m_len), right?
If we find delalloc blocks, we don't need to insert anything in ES
cache. So we just return 0 in such case in this function.
> But it doesn't
> trigger any issue now because the map->m_len is always set to one and we
> always insert one delayed block once a time. Fix this by trim the extent
> once we get one from the cached extent tree, prearing for mapping a
> extent with multiple delalloc blocks.
>
Yes, it wasn't clear until I looked at the discussion in the other
thread. It would be helpful if you could use that example in the commit
msg here for clarity.
"""
Yeah, now we only trim map len if we found an unwritten extent or written
extent in the cache, this isn't okay if we found a hole and
ext4_insert_delayed_block() and ext4_da_map_blocks() support inserting
map->len blocks. If we found a hole which es->es_len is shorter than the
length we want to write, we could delay more blocks than we expected.
Please assume we write data [A, C) to a file that contains a hole extent
[A, B) and a written extent [B, D) in cache.
A B C D
before da write: ...hhhhhh|wwwwww....
Then we will get extent [A, B), we should trim map->m_len to B-A before
inserting new delalloc blocks, if not, the range [B, C) is duplicated.
"""
Minor nit: ext4_da_map_blocks() function comments have become stale now.
It's not clear of it's return value, the lock it uses etc. etc. If we are
at it, we might as well fix the function description.
-ritesh
