Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 11:21:13AM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 02:20:57AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > spin_unlock(>i_lock); > > > > > > - if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME) > > > - mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode); > > > + /* This was a lazytime expiration; we need to tell the file system */ > > > + if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED && inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode) > > > + inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, I_DIRTY_SYNC); > > > > I think this needs a very clear comment explaining why we don't go > > through __mark_inode_dirty. > > I can take the explanation which is in the git commit description and > move it into the comment. > > > But as said before I'd rather have a new lazytime_expired operation that > > makes it very clear what is happening. We currenly have 4 file systems > > (ext4, f2fs, ubifs and xfs) that support lazytime, so this won't really > > be a major churn. > > Again, I believe patch #2 does what you want; if it doesn't can you > explain why passing I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED to s_op->dirty_inode() isn't > "a new lazytime expired operation that makes very clear what is > happening"? > > I separated out patch #1 and patch #2 because patch #1 preserves > current behavior, and patch #2 modifies XFS code, which I don't want > to push Linus without an XFS reviewed-by. > > N.b. None of the other file systems required a change for patch #2, > so if you want, we can have the XFS tree carry patch #2, and/or > combine that with whatever other simplifying changes that you want. > Or I can combine patch #1 and patch #2, with an XFS Reviewed-by, and > send it through the ext4 tree. > > What's your pleasure? TBH while I'm pretty sure this does actually maintain more or less the same behavior on xfs, I prefer Christoph's explicit ->lazytime_expired approach[1] over squinting at bitflag manipulations. (It also took me a while to realize that this patch duo even existed, as it was kinda buried in its parent thread...) --D [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20200325122825.1086872-1-...@lst.de/T/#t > > - Ted > ___ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 02:20:57AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > spin_unlock(>i_lock); > > > > - if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME) > > - mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode); > > + /* This was a lazytime expiration; we need to tell the file system */ > > + if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED && inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode) > > + inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, I_DIRTY_SYNC); > > I think this needs a very clear comment explaining why we don't go > through __mark_inode_dirty. I can take the explanation which is in the git commit description and move it into the comment. > But as said before I'd rather have a new lazytime_expired operation that > makes it very clear what is happening. We currenly have 4 file systems > (ext4, f2fs, ubifs and xfs) that support lazytime, so this won't really > be a major churn. Again, I believe patch #2 does what you want; if it doesn't can you explain why passing I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED to s_op->dirty_inode() isn't "a new lazytime expired operation that makes very clear what is happening"? I separated out patch #1 and patch #2 because patch #1 preserves current behavior, and patch #2 modifies XFS code, which I don't want to push Linus without an XFS reviewed-by. N.b. None of the other file systems required a change for patch #2, so if you want, we can have the XFS tree carry patch #2, and/or combine that with whatever other simplifying changes that you want. Or I can combine patch #1 and patch #2, with an XFS Reviewed-by, and send it through the ext4 tree. What's your pleasure? - Ted ___ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
[f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] writeback: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration
In the case that an inode has dirty timestamp for longer than the
lazytime expiration timeout (or if all such inodes are being flushed
out due to a sync or syncfs system call), we need to inform the file
system that the inode is dirty so that the inode's timestamps can be
copied out to the on-disk data structures. That's because if the file
system supports lazytime, it will have ignored the dirty_inode(inode,
I_DIRTY_TIME) notification when the timestamp was modified in memory.q
Previously, this was accomplished by calling mark_inode_dirty_sync(),
but that has the unfortunate side effect of also putting the inode the
writeback list, and that's not necessary in this case, since we will
immediately call write_inode() afterwards.
Eric Biggers noticed that this was causing problems for fscrypt after
the key was removed[1].
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200306004555.gb225...@gmail.com
Reported-by: Eric Biggers
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o
---
fs/fs-writeback.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index 76ac9c7d32ec..867454997c9d 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -1504,8 +1504,9 @@ __writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct
writeback_control *wbc)
spin_unlock(>i_lock);
- if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME)
- mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode);
+ /* This was a lazytime expiration; we need to tell the file system */
+ if (dirty & I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRED && inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode)
+ inode->i_sb->s_op->dirty_inode(inode, I_DIRTY_SYNC);
/* Don't write the inode if only I_DIRTY_PAGES was set */
if (dirty & ~I_DIRTY_PAGES) {
int err = write_inode(inode, wbc);
--
2.24.1
___
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
