[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/2] Ocfs2: Optimize truncting codes for ocfs2 to use ocfs2_remove_btree_range instead.

[TaoMa <tao.ma@oracle.com>]

Hi Tristan,
Tristan Ye wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Tristan Ye <tristan.ye@oracle.com>
> ---
>  fs/ocfs2/alloc.c        |  695 +++++++++++------------------------------------
>  fs/ocfs2/alloc.h        |    6 +-
>  fs/ocfs2/dir.c          |    2 +-
>  fs/ocfs2/file.c         |   11 +-
>  fs/ocfs2/inode.c        |    9 +-
>  fs/ocfs2/refcounttree.c |   29 +--
>  fs/ocfs2/refcounttree.h |    4 +-
>  7 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 579 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
> index 38a42f5..bad3feb 100644
> --- a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
> @@ -5670,19 +5670,97 @@ out:
>  	return ret;
>  }
>  
>   
<snip>
> +static int ocfs2_reserve_blocks_for_rec_trunc(struct inode *inode,
> +					      struct ocfs2_extent_tree *et,
> +					      u32 extents_to_split,
> +					      struct ocfs2_alloc_context **ac,
> +					      int extra_blocks)
> +{
> +	int ret = 0, num_free_extents, blocks = extra_blocks;
> +	unsigned int max_recs_needed = 2 * extents_to_split;
> +	struct ocfs2_super *osb = OCFS2_SB(inode->i_sb);
> +
> +	*ac = NULL;
> +
> +	num_free_extents = ocfs2_num_free_extents(osb, et);
> +	if (num_free_extents < 0) {
> +		ret = num_free_extents;
> +		mlog_errno(ret);
> +		goto out;
> +	}
> +
> +	if (!num_free_extents ||
> +	    (ocfs2_sparse_alloc(osb) && num_free_extents < max_recs_needed))
> +		blocks += ocfs2_extend_meta_needed(et->et_root_el);
> +
> +	if (!blocks) {
> +		ret = ocfs2_reserve_new_metadata_blocks(osb, blocks, ac);
>   
Oh, this is a bug. I just wonder why I didn't find it earlier. Sorry.
the check condition should be
    if (blocks) {

So do please run some stress test on these 2 patches.

Regards,
Tao