Re: [RFC] Implement ->page_mkwrite for XFS
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Date: 2007-02-07 10:18:25
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, linux-xfs
On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 09:53:25AM +1100, David Chinner wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Folks, I'm not sure of the exact locking rules and constraints for ->page_mkwrite(), so I thought I better fish around for comments. With XFS, we need to hook pages being dirtied by mmap writes so that we can attach buffers of the correct state tothe pages. This means that when we write them back, the correct thing happens. For example, if you mmap an unwritten extent (preallocated), currently your data will get written to disk but the extent will not get converted to a written extent. IOWs, you lose the data because when you read it back it will seen as unwritten and treated as a hole. AFAICT, it is safe to lock the page during ->page_mkwrite and that it is safe to issue I/O (e.g. metadata reads) to determine the current state of the file. I am also assuming that, at this point, we are not allowed to change the file size and so we have to be careful in ->page_mkwrite we don't do that. What else have I missed here? IOWs, I've basically treated ->page_mkwrite() as wrapper for block_prepare_write/block_commit_write because they do all the buffer mapping and state manipulation I think is necessary. Is it safe to call these functions, or are there some other constraints we have to work under here? Patch below. Comments? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group --- fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c | 34 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+) Index: 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c ===================================================================--- 2.6.x-xfs-new.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c 2007-01-16 10:54:15.000000000 +1100 +++ 2.6.x-xfs-new/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_file.c 2007-02-07 09:49:00.508017483 +1100@@ -446,6 +446,38 @@ xfs_file_open_exec( } #endif /* HAVE_FOP_OPEN_EXEC */ +/* + * mmap()d file has taken write protection fault and is being made + * writable. We can set the page state up correctly for a writable + * page, which means we can do correct delalloc accounting (ENOSPC + * checking!) and unwritten extent mapping. + */ +STATIC int +xfs_vm_page_mkwrite( + struct vm_area_struct *vma, + struct page *page) +{ + struct inode *inode = vma->vm_file->f_path.dentry->d_inode; + unsigned long end; + int ret = 0; + + end = page->index + 1; + end <<= PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT; + if (end > i_size_read(inode)) + end = i_size_read(inode) & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK; + else + end = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE; + + lock_page(page); + ret = block_prepare_write(page, 0, end, xfs_get_blocks); + if (!ret) + ret = block_commit_write(page, 0, end); + unlock_page(page); + + return ret; +}
This looks to me. But given that this is generic code except for the
get_block callback, shouldn't we put the guts into buffer.c and wire
all filesystems up to use it? e.g.
int block_page_mkwrite(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct page *page,
get_block_t get_block)
{
struct inode *inode = vma->vm_file->f_path.dentry->d_inode;
unsigned long end;
int ret = 0;
if ((page->index + 1) << PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT > i_size_read(inode))
end = i_size_read(inode) & ~PAGE_CACHE_MASK;
else
end = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE;
lock_page(page);
ret = block_prepare_write(page, 0, end, block);
if (!ret)
ret = block_commit_write(page, 0, end);
unlock_page(page);
return ret;
}
and then in xfs and similar in other filesystems:
STATIC int
xfs_vm_page_mkwrite(
struct vm_area_struct *vma,
struct page *page)
{
return block_page_mkwrite(vma, page, xfs_get_blocks);
}
BTW, why is xfs_get_blocks not called xfs_get_block?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>