Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/4] fs: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration

2020-03-26 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 02:22:12PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:28:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > 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

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/4] fs: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration

2020-03-25 Thread Dave Chinner
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:28:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > 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 inod

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/4] fs: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration

2020-03-25 Thread Christoph Hellwig
On Wed, Mar 25, 2020 at 01:28:23PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > --- a/fs/ext4/super.c > +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c > @@ -1448,6 +1448,11 @@ static struct dquot **ext4_get_dquots(struct inode > *inode) > return EXT4_I(inode)->i_dquot; > } > > +static void ext4_lazytime_expired(struct inode

[f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/4] fs: avoid double-writing the inode on a lazytime expiration

2020-03-25 Thread Christoph Hellwig
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