[Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Ocfs2: Optimize punching-hole codes v5.

[tristan <tristan.ye@oracle.com>]

That's really a quick review;)

I appreciated it.

Tao Ma wrote:
> Hi Tristan,
>
> Tristan Ye wrote:
>> V5 patch simplifies the logic of handling existing holes and procedures
>> for skipping extent blocks, and removed most of confusing comments.
>>
>> V5 patch has survived with fill_verify_holes testcase in ocfs2-test,
>> it also passed my manual sanity check and stress tests with enormous
>> extent records.
>> Signed-off-by: Tristan Ye <tristan.ye@oracle.com>
>> ---
>> fs/ocfs2/file.c | 173 
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>> 1 files changed, 148 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/file.c b/fs/ocfs2/file.c
>> index db2e0c9..907653e 100644
>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/file.c
>> @@ -1423,18 +1423,97 @@ out:
>> return ret;
>> }
>>
>> +static int ocfs2_find_rec(struct ocfs2_extent_list *el,
>> + u32 pos,
>> + int include_pos)
> Why you need this 'include_pos'? btw, there is only one caller with 
> include_pos = 0, so why not remove it? ;)

I originally used it in two places, anyway, it can be simplified as you 
told;) that doesn't matter actually, keeing this can make the func looks 
more common;)

>> +{
>> + int i;
>> + struct ocfs2_extent_rec *rec = NULL;
>> +
>> + for (i = le16_to_cpu(el->l_next_free_rec) - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
>> +
>> + rec = &el->l_recs[i];
>> +
>> + if (include_pos) {
>> + if (le32_to_cpu(rec->e_cpos) <= pos)
>> + break;
>> + } else {
>> + if (le32_to_cpu(rec->e_cpos) < pos)
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + return i;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Helper to calculate the punching pos and length in one run, we 
>> handle the
>> + * following three cases in order:
>> + *
>> + * - remove the entire record
>> + * - remove a partial record
>> + * - no record needs to be removed (hole-punching completed)
>> +*/
>> +static void ocfs2_calc_trunc_pos(struct inode *inode,
>> + struct ocfs2_extent_list *el,
>> + struct ocfs2_extent_rec *rec,
>> + u32 trunc_start, u32 *trunc_cpos,
>> + u32 *trunc_len, u32 *trunc_end,
>> + u64 *blkno, int *done)
>> +{
>> + int ret = 0;
>> + u32 coff, range;
>> +
>> + range = le32_to_cpu(rec->e_cpos) + ocfs2_rec_clusters(el, rec);
>> +
>> + if (le32_to_cpu(rec->e_cpos) >= trunc_start) {
>> + *trunc_cpos = le32_to_cpu(rec->e_cpos);
>> + /*
>> + * Skip holes if any.
>> + */
>> + if (range < *trunc_end)
>> + *trunc_end = range;
>> + *trunc_len = *trunc_end - le32_to_cpu(rec->e_cpos);
>> + *blkno = le64_to_cpu(rec->e_blkno);
>> + *trunc_end = le32_to_cpu(rec->e_cpos);
>> + } else if (range > trunc_start) {
>> + *trunc_cpos = trunc_start;
>> + *trunc_len = range - trunc_start;
> I guess there should be a bug? what if the old trunc_end < range?
> then *trunc_len should be min(range, *trunc_end) - trunc_start?

That's definitely a bug, good catch!!

should be trunc_len = trunc_end - trunc_start;

Unlike partial truncating(a partial truncate always from end of a 
record), while punching could happen anywhere.

>> + coff = trunc_start - le32_to_cpu(rec->e_cpos);
>> + *blkno = le64_to_cpu(rec->e_blkno) +
>> + ocfs2_clusters_to_blocks(inode->i_sb, coff);
>> + *trunc_end = trunc_start;
>> + } else {
>> + /*
>> + * It may have two following possibilities:
>> + *
>> + * - last record has been removed
>> + * - trunc_start was within a hole
>> + *
>> + * both two cases mean the completion of hole punching.
>> + */
>> + ret = 1;
>> + }
>> +
>> + *done = ret;
>> +}
>> +
> Regards,
> Tao