Re: [RFC] fsblock
From: Chris Mason <hidden>
Date: 2007-06-25 12:28:21
Also in:
linux-fsdevel, lkml
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:58:48PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
quoted
Using buffer heads instead allows the FS to send file data down inside the transaction code, without taking the page lock. So, locking wrt data=ordered is definitely going to be tricky. The best long term option may be making the locking order transaction -> page lock, and change writepage to punt to some other queue when it needs to start a transaction.Yeah, that's what I would like, and I think it would come naturally if we move away from these "pass down a single, locked page APIs" in the VM, and let the filesystem do the locking and potentially batching of larger ranges.
Definitely.
write_begin/write_end is a step in that direction (and it helps OCFS and GFS quite a bit). I think there is also not much reason for writepage sites to require the page to lock the page and clear the dirty bit themselves (which has seems ugly to me).
If we keep the page mapping information with the page all the time (ie writepage doesn't have to call get_block ever), it may be possible to avoid sending down a locked page. But, I don't know the delayed allocation internals well enough to say for sure if that is true. Either way, writepage is the easiest of the bunch because it can be deferred. -chris -- 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>