On Mon, 4 Dec 2000, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> I just wanted to be clear on the purpose of the patches. The bforget() one
> looks like "taking care of the details", but not like a bug-fix. Agreed?
Agreed - invalidate_inode_buffers() seems to be doing the right thing,
so previous objections do not apply.
> > We can survive without them (modulo patch to clear_inode()), but...
>
> The "patch to clean-inode" is the one I already did from sct? Or are we
> talking about another issue?
No, the same one. I missed the invalidate_inode_buffers() bit.
> > BTW, there is another reason why we want to have separate function
> > for freeing the stuff: we may want to mark them clean. If they are
> > already under IO it will do nothing, but if they are merely dirty...
>
> Yes. Make it so. In the meantime, does everybody agree that pre5 fixes the
> bugs, even though it still has these discussion items left?
With respect to dirty blocks - hopefully yes.
Cheers,
Al
PS: bforget patch (with mark_buffer_clean() added) follows. And yes, it's
optimization and not a bug-fix.
diff -urN rc12-pre5/fs/buffer.c rc12-pre5-dirty_blocks/fs/buffer.c
--- rc12-pre5/fs/buffer.c Tue Dec 5 02:03:14 2000
+++ rc12-pre5-dirty_blocks/fs/buffer.c Tue Dec 5 02:40:16 2000
@@ -1164,6 +1164,32 @@
}
/*
+ * Call it when you are going to free the block. The difference between
+ * that and bforget() is that we remove the thing from inode queue
+ * unconditionally and mark it clean.
+ */
+void bforget_inode(struct buffer_head * buf)
+{
+ mark_buffer_clean(buf);
+ /* grab the lru lock here to block bdflush. */
+ spin_lock(&lru_list_lock);
+ write_lock(&hash_table_lock);
+ remove_inode_queue(buf);
+ if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&buf->b_count) || buffer_locked(buf))
+ goto in_use;
+ __hash_unlink(buf);
+ write_unlock(&hash_table_lock);
+ __remove_from_lru_list(buf, buf->b_list);
+ spin_unlock(&lru_list_lock);
+ put_last_free(buf);
+ return;
+
+ in_use:
+ write_unlock(&hash_table_lock);
+ spin_unlock(&lru_list_lock);
+}
+
+/*
* bread() reads a specified block and returns the buffer that contains
* it. It returns NULL if the block was unreadable.
*/
@@ -1460,6 +1486,9 @@
clear_bit(BH_Mapped, &bh->b_state);
clear_bit(BH_Req, &bh->b_state);
clear_bit(BH_New, &bh->b_state);
+ spin_lock(&lru_list_lock);
+ remove_inode_queue(bh);
+ spin_unlock(&lru_list_lock);
}
}
diff -urN rc12-pre5/fs/ext2/inode.c rc12-pre5-dirty_blocks/fs/ext2/inode.c
--- rc12-pre5/fs/ext2/inode.c Tue Dec 5 02:03:14 2000
+++ rc12-pre5-dirty_blocks/fs/ext2/inode.c Tue Dec 5 02:37:59 2000
@@ -416,7 +416,7 @@
/* Allocation failed, free what we already allocated */
for (i = 1; i < n; i++)
- bforget(branch[i].bh);
+ bforget_inode(branch[i].bh);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
ext2_free_blocks(inode, le32_to_cpu(branch[i].key), 1);
return err;
@@ -484,7 +484,7 @@
changed:
for (i = 1; i < num; i++)
- bforget(where[i].bh);
+ bforget_inode(where[i].bh);
for (i = 0; i < num; i++)
ext2_free_blocks(inode, le32_to_cpu(where[i].key), 1);
return -EAGAIN;
@@ -854,7 +854,7 @@
(u32*)bh->b_data,
(u32*)bh->b_data + addr_per_block,
depth);
- bforget(bh);
+ bforget_inode(bh);
/* Writer: ->i_blocks */
inode->i_blocks -= inode->i_sb->s_blocksize / 512;
/* Writer: end */
diff -urN rc12-pre5/include/linux/fs.h rc12-pre5-dirty_blocks/include/linux/fs.h
--- rc12-pre5/include/linux/fs.h Tue Dec 5 02:03:19 2000
+++ rc12-pre5-dirty_blocks/include/linux/fs.h Tue Dec 5 02:37:59 2000
@@ -1201,6 +1201,7 @@
__brelse(buf);
}
extern void __bforget(struct buffer_head *);
+extern void bforget_inode(struct buffer_head *);
static inline void bforget(struct buffer_head *buf)
{
if (buf)
diff -urN rc12-pre5/kernel/ksyms.c rc12-pre5-dirty_blocks/kernel/ksyms.c
--- rc12-pre5/kernel/ksyms.c Tue Dec 5 02:03:20 2000
+++ rc12-pre5-dirty_blocks/kernel/ksyms.c Tue Dec 5 02:38:00 2000
@@ -188,6 +188,7 @@
EXPORT_SYMBOL(breada);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__brelse);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__bforget);
+EXPORT_SYMBOL(bforget_inode);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(ll_rw_block);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(__wait_on_buffer);
EXPORT_SYMBOL(___wait_on_page);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Dec 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST