[lkml]   [2012]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 0/9] do not use s_dirt in ext4
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 11:33 +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > However, if there is _no_ journal, the 'write_super' is initialized, and
> > in many places the 's_dirt' flag is set, and thus VFS services seem to
> > be actively used.
> Which many places are you speaking about? Grep shows 4 places with
> sb->s_dirt = 1;

Well, with 'ext4_mark_super_dirty()' there are still 6 or something

> You remove two of those in your cleanups so only
> __ext4_handle_dirty_super() remains. That is called from 3 (4 after your
> cleanups) places and they happen so rarely (during filesystem resize or
> when we start using some feature on the filesystem) that if you use
> sync_buffer() from all of them, it should be fine.

But AFAIKC, the whole '__ext4_handle_dirty_super()' also falls-back to
marking the superblock as dirty if the file-system has no journal for
some reasons, right?. But I do not really understand what
'ext4_handle_valid()' does. If I grep for 'ext4_handle_dirty_super()' -
there are many places places where it is used, and a few are obviously
for the superblocks.

Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
 \ /
  Last update: 2012-03-22 12:25    [W:0.084 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site