Date:	Wed, 3 Aug 2011 20:50:01 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1 v3] ext4: fix xfstests 75, 112, 127 punch hole
 failure

On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 08:20:36AM -0700, Allison Henderson wrote:
> @@ -4227,6 +4227,28 @@ int ext4_ext_punch_hole(struct file *file, loff_t offset, loff_t length)
>  		}
>  	}
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * Now we need to unmap the un page aligned buffers.
> +	 * If the file is smaller than a page, just
> +	 * unmap the middle
> +	 */

This should be "non-page-aligned buffers".  And it's not "if the file
is smaller than a page", but rather "if the file space being truncated
is smaller than a page".  (The comment above this patch hunk is
similarly wrong).

> +	if (first_page > last_page)
> +		ext4_unmap_page_range(handle, mapping, offset, length);
> +	else {
> +		/* unmap page buffers before the first aligned page */
> +		page_len = first_page_offset - offset;
> +		if (page_len > 0)
> +			ext4_unmap_page_range(handle, mapping,
> +				offset, page_len);
> +
> +		/* unmap the page buffers after the last aligned page */
> +		page_len = offset + length - last_page_offset;
> +		if (page_len > 0) {
> +			ext4_unmap_page_range(handle, mapping,
> +				last_page_offset, page_len);
> +		}
> +	}
> +

We unconditionally call ext4_unmap_page_range() at least once, and
possibly twice.  The ext4_unmap_page_range() function is always going
to be calling find_or_create_page(), which requires locking pages,
taking RCU locks, etc..  None of this code should be needed if:

   inode->i_sb->s_blocksize == PAGE_CACHE_SIZE
or
   (offset % PAGE_CACHE_SIZE == 0) && (length % PAGE_CACHE_SIZE == 0)

> +/*
> + * ext4_unmap_page_range() unmaps a page range of length 'length'
> + * starting from file offset 'from'.  The range to be unmaped must
> + * be contained with in one page.  If the specified range exceeds
> + * the end of the page it will be shortened to end of the page
> + * that cooresponds to 'from'.  Only block aligned buffers will
> + * be unmapped and unblock aligned buffers are skipped
> + */
> +int ext4_unmap_page_range(handle_t *handle,
> +		struct address_space *mapping, loff_t from, loff_t length)

This function is only used by extents.c; maybe it should be placed in
extents.c and declared static, instead of being placed in inode.c?

> +{
> +	ext4_fsblk_t index = from >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT;
> +	unsigned int offset = from & (PAGE_CACHE_SIZE-1);
> +	unsigned int blocksize, max, pos;
> +	unsigned int end_of_block, range_to_unmap;
> +	ext4_lblk_t iblock;
> +	struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> +	struct buffer_head *bh;
> +	struct page *page;
> +	int err = 0;
> +
> +	page = find_or_create_page(mapping, from >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT,
> +				   mapping_gfp_mask(mapping) & ~__GFP_FS);
> +	if (!page)
> +		return -EINVAL;
> +
> +	blocksize = inode->i_sb->s_blocksize;
> +	max = PAGE_CACHE_SIZE - offset;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * correct length if it does not fall between
> +	 * 'from' and the end of the page
> +	 */
> +	if (length > max || length < 0)
> +		length = max;
> +
> +	iblock = index << (PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT - inode->i_sb->s_blocksize_bits);
> +
> +	if (!page_has_buffers(page))
> +		create_empty_buffers(page, blocksize, 0);

If the page doesn't have any buffers, we could just return 0; there's
no point calling create_empty_buffers() and then looping over them
all.

> +
> +	/* Find the buffer that contains "offset" */
> +	bh = page_buffers(page);
> +	pos = blocksize;
> +	while (offset >= pos) {
> +		bh = bh->b_this_page;
> +		iblock++;
> +		pos += blocksize;
> +	}
> +
> +	pos = offset;
> +	while (pos < offset + length) {
> +		err = 0;
> +
> +		/* The length of space left to zero */
> +		range_to_unmap = offset + length - pos;
> +
> +		/* The length of space until the end of the block */
> +		end_of_block = blocksize - (pos & (blocksize-1));
> +
> +		/* Do not unmap past end of block */
> +		if (range_to_unmap > end_of_block)
> +			range_to_unmap = end_of_block;
> +
> +		if (buffer_freed(bh)) {
> +			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "freed: skip");
> +			goto next;
> +		}
> +
> +		if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) {
> +			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "unmapped");
> +			ext4_get_block(inode, iblock, bh, 0);
> +			/* unmapped? It's a hole - nothing to do */
> +			if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) {
> +				BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "still unmapped");
> +				goto next;
> +			}
> +		}

If the buffer is unmapped, why not just goto next right away?  Why
bother calling ext4_get_block() and mapping it, when all we're going
to do is declare the buffer as unmapped anyway.

> +
> +		/* If the range is not block aligned, skip */
> +		if (range_to_unmap != blocksize)
> +			goto next;
> +
> +		if (ext4_should_journal_data(inode)) {
> +			BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "get write access");
> +			err = ext4_journal_get_write_access(handle, bh);
> +			if (err)
> +				goto unlock;
> +		}
> +
> +		clear_buffer_dirty(bh);
> +		bh->b_bdev = NULL;
> +		clear_buffer_mapped(bh);
> +		clear_buffer_req(bh);
> +		clear_buffer_new(bh);
> +		clear_buffer_delay(bh);
> +		clear_buffer_unwritten(bh);
> +		clear_buffer_uptodate(bh);
> +		ClearPageUptodate(page);
> +
> +		BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "buffer unmapped");
> +
> +		if (ext4_should_journal_data(inode)) {
> +			err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, inode, bh);
> +		} else {
> +			if (ext4_should_order_data(inode) &&
> +			    EXT4_I(inode)->jinode)
> +				err = ext4_jbd2_file_inode(handle, inode);
> +		}

Why are we calling ext4_handle_dirty_metadata() or
ext4_jbd2_file_inode() here?  It's not necessary, since we're not
actually dirtying any buffers here.  We're just marking buffer heads
as unmarked.

> +
> +next:
> +		bh = bh->b_this_page;
> +		iblock++;
> +		pos += range_to_unmap;
> +	}
> +unlock:
> +	unlock_page(page);
> +	page_cache_release(page);
> +	return err;
> +}
> +
> +
>  int ext4_can_truncate(struct inode *inode)
>  {
>  	if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> -- 
> 1.7.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists