Re: [PATCH v4 5/8] xfs: create function to scan and clear EOFBLOCKS inodes

Dave Chinner
2012-09-28T07:19:57Z

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:45:49PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> xfs_inodes_free_eofblocks() implements scanning functionality for
> EOFBLOCKS inodes. It uses the AG iterator to walk the tagged inodes
> and free post-EOF blocks via the xfs_inode_free_eofblocks() execute
> function. The scan can be invoked in best-effort mode or wait
> (force) mode.
>
> A best-effort scan (default) handles all inodes that do not have a
> dirty cache and we successfully acquire the io lock via trylock. In
> wait mode, we continue to cycle through an AG until all inodes are
> handled.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>

xfs_icache.c rebase, and...

> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> fs/xfs/xfs_sync.h | 1 +
> fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h | 1 +
> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c
> index 0da93c9..6854800 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c
> @@ -1014,6 +1014,46 @@ xfs_reclaim_inodes_count(
> return reclaimable;
> }
>
> +STATIC int
> +xfs_inode_free_eofblocks(
> + struct xfs_inode *ip,
> + struct xfs_perag *pag,
> + int flags,
> + void *args)
> +{
> + int ret;
> + bool force = flags & SYNC_WAIT;
> +
> + if (!xfs_can_free_eofblocks(ip, false)) {
> + /* inode could be preallocated or append-only */
> + trace_xfs_inode_free_eofblocks_invalid(ip);
> + xfs_inode_clear_eofblocks_tag(ip);
> + return 0;
> + }
> +
> + if (!force && mapping_tagged(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping,
> + PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))
> + return 0;

This reads rather strangely. I'd prefer that you don't use a "force"
variable because we're not really "forcing" anything. SYNC_WAIT is
telling us if we should block (wait) or not. i.e.

/*
* if the mapping is dirty the operation can block and wait
* for some time. So unless we are waiting, skip it.
*/
if (!(flags & SYNC_WAIT) &&
(mapping_tagged(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))
return 0;

makes more sense and is consistent with xfs_reclaim_inode() usage.

> + ret = xfs_free_eofblocks(ip->i_mount, ip, true);
> +
> + /* ignore EAGAIN on a best effort scan */
> + if (!force && (ret == EAGAIN))
> + ret = 0;

/* don't revisit the inode if we not waiting */
if (ret == EAGAIN && !(flags & SYNC_WAIT))
return 0;
return ret;
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +int
> +xfs_inodes_free_eofblocks(
> + struct xfs_mount *mp,
> + int flags)
> +{
> + ASSERT((flags & ~(SYNC_TRYLOCK|SYNC_WAIT)) == 0);
> + return xfs_inode_ag_iterator_tag(mp, xfs_inode_free_eofblocks, flags,
> + NULL, XFS_ICI_EOFBLOCKS_TAG);
> +}

TWo functions very similarly named. Perhaps the latter would be
better named xfs_icache_free_eofblocks() to indicate it is an inode
cache operation, rather than an inode operation.

Then at some point in another patch set we can rename
xfs_reclaim_inodes* to xfs_icache_reclaim_* and
xfs_inode_ag_iterator* to xfs_icache_iterator* and so one so that
there is a clear naming difference between operations on the inode
cache and individual inodes...

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com