Re: [PATCH 05/13] fs: don't call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Date: 2021-01-07 13:18:36
Also in:
linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs
On Mon 04-01-21 16:54:44, Eric Biggers wrote:
From: Eric Biggers <redacted> There is no need to call ->dirty_inode for lazytime timestamp updates (i.e. for __mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_TIME)), since by the definition of lazytime, filesystems must ignore these updates. Filesystems only need to care about the updated timestamps when they expire. Therefore, only call ->dirty_inode when I_DIRTY_INODE is set. Based on a patch from Christoph Hellwig: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200325122825.1086872-4-hch@lst.de (local) Signed-off-by: Eric Biggers <redacted>
...
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c index 081e335cdee47..e3347fd6eb13a 100644 --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c@@ -2264,16 +2264,16 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags) * Don't do this for I_DIRTY_PAGES - that doesn't actually * dirty the inode itself */ - if (flags & (I_DIRTY_INODE | I_DIRTY_TIME)) { + if (flags & I_DIRTY_INODE) { trace_writeback_dirty_inode_start(inode, flags); if (sb->s_op->dirty_inode) sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, flags);
OK, but shouldn't we pass just (flags & I_DIRTY_INODE) to ->dirty_inode(). Just to make it clear what the filesystem is supposed to consume in 'flags'... Honza -- Jan Kara [off-list ref] SUSE Labs, CR