[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:0.020 / U:2.720 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site