Re: [RFC] fsblock

[Chris Mason]

On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 04:58:48PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> 
> >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 from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/