Patchwork [v2,1/4] ext4: Remove useless marking of superblock dirty

login
register
mail settings
Submitter Artem Bityutskiy
Date April 2, 2012, 11:45 a.m.
Message ID <1333367140-28370-2-git-send-email-artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
Download mbox | patch
Permalink /patch/150116/
State Superseded
Headers show

Comments

Artem Bityutskiy - April 2, 2012, 11:45 a.m.
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Commit a0375156 properly notes that superblock doesn't need to be marked
as dirty when only number of free inodes / blocks / number of directories
changes since that is recomputed on each mount anyway. However that comment
leaves some unnecessary markings as dirty in place. Remove these.

Artem: tested using xfstests for both journalled and non-journalled ext4.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Tested-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Artem Bityutskiy <artem.bityutskiy@linux.intel.com>
---
 fs/ext4/ialloc.c  |    2 --
 fs/ext4/mballoc.c |    2 --
 2 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
Artem Bityutskiy - April 12, 2012, 7:20 a.m.
On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 14:45 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> 
> Commit a0375156 properly notes that superblock doesn't need to be marked
> as dirty when only number of free inodes / blocks / number of directories
> changes since that is recomputed on each mount anyway. However that comment
> leaves some unnecessary markings as dirty in place. Remove these.
> 
> Artem: tested using xfstests for both journalled and non-journalled ext4.

Hi Ted, what would be the fate of this patch-set?
Artem Bityutskiy - April 30, 2012, 8:37 a.m.
On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 10:20 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 14:45 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > 
> > Commit a0375156 properly notes that superblock doesn't need to be marked
> > as dirty when only number of free inodes / blocks / number of directories
> > changes since that is recomputed on each mount anyway. However that comment
> > leaves some unnecessary markings as dirty in place. Remove these.
> > 
> > Artem: tested using xfstests for both journalled and non-journalled ext4.
> 
> Hi Ted, what would be the fate of this patch-set?

Hi Ted, I am sorry for being annoying, but what do you think about these
patches?
Artem Bityutskiy - June 1, 2012, 1:53 p.m.
On Mon, 2012-04-30 at 11:37 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 10:20 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > On Mon, 2012-04-02 at 14:45 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> > > From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> > > 
> > > Commit a0375156 properly notes that superblock doesn't need to be marked
> > > as dirty when only number of free inodes / blocks / number of directories
> > > changes since that is recomputed on each mount anyway. However that comment
> > > leaves some unnecessary markings as dirty in place. Remove these.
> > > 
> > > Artem: tested using xfstests for both journalled and non-journalled ext4.
> > 
> > Hi Ted, what would be the fate of this patch-set?
> 
> Hi Ted, I am sorry for being annoying, but what do you think about these
> patches?

Hi Ted, any chance for this stuff to hit 3.4?
Artem Bityutskiy - June 1, 2012, 1:55 p.m.
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 16:53 +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Hi Ted, any chance for this stuff to hit 3.4?

Sorry, of course I actually meant the current merge window for 3.5.
Theodore Ts'o - June 1, 2012, 3:16 p.m.
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:53:40PM +0300, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> 
> Hi Ted, any chance for this stuff to hit 3.4?
> 

Hi Artem,

I'm very sorry, this has been completely my fault; this has been an
absolutely crazy month this past May, and this just slipped off my
radar, and we're just out of time.  I will make sure this patchset
gets reviewed and queued for 3.5.

						- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Artem Bityutskiy - June 1, 2012, 5:48 p.m.
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:16 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> I'm very sorry, this has been completely my fault; this has been an
> absolutely crazy month this past May, and this just slipped off my
> radar, and we're just out of time.  I will make sure this patchset
> gets reviewed and queued for 3.5.

No problem, thanks for reply. I think it would be safer if could take it
to your tree (providing it is OK) and it would go through the normal
cycle and hit 3.6, not 3.5. There is no rush with this - I need to take
care of several other file-systems before the whole kernel thread can be
killed anyway.
Artem Bityutskiy - June 21, 2012, 1:11 p.m.
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:16 -0400, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> I will make sure this patchset
> gets reviewed and queued for 3.5.

Hi Ted,

just a reminder. The patch does not apply cleanly but the conflicts are
simple and they are around the SB checksum stuff. Do you want me to
re-send?

Patch

diff --git a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
index 409c2ee..b7188c6 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
@@ -295,7 +295,6 @@  out:
 		err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, bitmap_bh);
 		if (!fatal)
 			fatal = err;
-		ext4_mark_super_dirty(sb);
 	} else
 		ext4_error(sb, "bit already cleared for inode %lu", ino);
 
@@ -800,7 +799,6 @@  got:
 	percpu_counter_dec(&sbi->s_freeinodes_counter);
 	if (S_ISDIR(mode))
 		percpu_counter_inc(&sbi->s_dirs_counter);
-	ext4_mark_super_dirty(sb);
 
 	if (sbi->s_log_groups_per_flex) {
 		flex_group = ext4_flex_group(sbi, group);
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index 99ab428..3db3dfc 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -2822,7 +2822,6 @@  ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
 	err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, gdp_bh);
 
 out_err:
-	ext4_mark_super_dirty(sb);
 	brelse(bitmap_bh);
 	return err;
 }
@@ -4692,7 +4691,6 @@  do_more:
 		put_bh(bitmap_bh);
 		goto do_more;
 	}
-	ext4_mark_super_dirty(sb);
 error_return:
 	brelse(bitmap_bh);
 	ext4_std_error(sb, err);