public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/11] xfs: remove the if_ext_max field in struct xfs_ifork
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2012 09:16:39 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120117151639.GE16581@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120116224527.GD16581@sgi.com>

On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 04:45:27PM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> Hey Christoph,
> 
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2012 at 10:58:18AM -0600, Ben Myers wrote:
> > On Sun, Dec 18, 2011 at 03:00:07PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > We spent a lot of effort to maintain this field, but it always equalts to the
> > 								 equals the
> > > fork size divided by the constant size of an extent.  The prime use of it is
> > > to assert that the two stay in sync.  Just divide the fork size by the extent
> > > size in the few places that we actually use it and remove the overhead
> > > of maintaining it.  Also introduce a few helpers to consolidate the places
> > > where we actually care about the value.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> > 
> > After reviewing this patch it's not crystal clear to me why we were
> > putting all that effort into keeping this counter uptodate on the inode
> > instead of using helpers like you've implemented.  Maybe a question of
> > integer division as Dave suggested.  This is a nice improvement.
> > 
> > > Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > > ===================================================================
> > > --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c	2011-12-12 10:33:55.748696870 -0800
> > > +++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c	2011-12-14 05:15:20.612373687 -0800
> > > @@ -249,7 +249,27 @@ xfs_bmbt_lookup_ge(
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  /*
> > > -* Update the record referred to by cur to the value given
> > > + * Check if the inode needs to be converted to btree format.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline bool xfs_bmap_needs_btree(struct xfs_inode *ip, int whichfork)
> > > +{
> > > +	return XFS_IFORK_FORMAT(ip, whichfork) == XFS_DINODE_FMT_EXTENTS &&
> > > +		XFS_IFORK_NEXTENTS(ip, whichfork) >
> > > +			XFS_IFORK_MAXEXT(ip, whichfork);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +/*
> > > + * Check if the inode should be converted to extent format.
> > > + */
> > > +static inline bool xfs_bmap_wants_extents(struct xfs_inode *ip, int whichfork)
> > > +{
> > > +	return XFS_IFORK_FORMAT(ip, whichfork) == XFS_DINODE_FMT_BTREE &&
> > > +		XFS_IFORK_NEXTENTS(ip, whichfork) <=
> > > +			XFS_IFORK_MAXEXT(ip, whichfork);
> > > +}
> > 
> > The logic in these two appears to be equivalent to the code you've
> > replaced in all but one case...
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > > @@ -5321,8 +5318,7 @@ xfs_bunmapi(
> > >  		 * will be dirty.
> > >  		 */
> > >  		if (!wasdel && xfs_trans_get_block_res(tp) == 0 &&
> > > -		    XFS_IFORK_FORMAT(ip, whichfork) == XFS_DINODE_FMT_EXTENTS &&
> > > -		    XFS_IFORK_NEXTENTS(ip, whichfork) >= ifp->if_ext_max &&
> > 						      ^^ 
> > All other tests for this were:
> > XFS_IFORK_NEXTENTS(ip, whichfork) > ifp->if_ext_max
> > 
> > Did you just fix a lurking off-by-one or insert one?
> > 
> > xfs_bmap_needs_btree needs ip->i_d.di_nextents to have been incremented 
> > already in order to detect that we need to convert to btree format.  In
> > this case we haven't done that yet and are checking to see if doing so
> > would require conversion to btree format... 
> > 
> > Looks to me like we can't use xfs_bmap_needs_btree here and should use
> > the old logic.  Right?
> 
> HCH, I have a question for you here that I feel needs to be resolved.
> Can you take a look?

Here is what I propose to use here:

@@ -5322,7 +5319,8 @@ xfs_bunmapi(
                 */
                if (!wasdel && xfs_trans_get_block_res(tp) == 0 &&
                    XFS_IFORK_FORMAT(ip, whichfork) == XFS_DINODE_FMT_EXTENTS &&
-                   XFS_IFORK_NEXTENTS(ip, whichfork) >= ifp->if_ext_max &&
+                   XFS_IFORK_NEXTENTS(ip, whichfork) >= /* Note the >= */
+                       XFS_IFORK_MAXEXT(ip, whichfork) &&
                    del.br_startoff > got.br_startoff &&
                    del.br_startoff + del.br_blockcount <
                    got.br_startoff + got.br_blockcount) {

-Ben

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2012-01-17 15:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-12-18 20:00 [PATCH 00/11] inode shrink and misc updates V2 Christoph Hellwig
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 01/11] xfs: remove xfs_itruncate_data Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-03 21:53   ` Ben Myers
2012-01-04  9:27     ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 02/11] xfs: cleanup xfs_iomap_eof_align_last_fsb Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-04 20:32   ` Ben Myers
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 03/11] xfs: remove the unused dm_attrs structure Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-04 21:13   ` Ben Myers
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 04/11] xfs: remove the if_ext_max field in struct xfs_ifork Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-06 16:58   ` Ben Myers
2012-01-16 22:45     ` Ben Myers
2012-01-17 15:16       ` Ben Myers [this message]
2012-01-17 17:04         ` Mark Tinguely
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 05/11] xfs: make i_flags an unsigned long Christoph Hellwig
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 06/11] xfs: replace i_flock with a sleeping bitlock Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-13 21:49   ` Ben Myers
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 07/11] xfs: replace i_pin_wait with a bit waitqueue Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-13 22:42   ` Ben Myers
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 08/11] xfs: remove the i_size field in struct xfs_inode Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-16 18:32   ` Ben Myers
2012-01-16 19:45     ` Ben Myers
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 09/11] xfs: remove the i_new_size " Christoph Hellwig
2011-12-18 22:13   ` Dave Chinner
2012-01-16 22:41   ` Ben Myers
2012-01-17 20:14   ` Ben Myers
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 10/11] xfs: always return with the iolock held from xfs_file_aio_write_checks Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-17 20:18   ` Ben Myers
2012-01-20 12:51     ` Jeff Liu
2011-12-18 20:00 ` [PATCH 11/11] xfs: cleanup xfs_file_aio_write Christoph Hellwig
2012-01-17 20:42   ` Ben Myers
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2011-12-08 15:57 [PATCH 00/11] inode shrink and misc updates Christoph Hellwig
2011-12-08 15:57 ` [PATCH 04/11] xfs: remove the if_ext_max field in struct xfs_ifork Christoph Hellwig
2011-12-13 21:59   ` Dave Chinner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20120117151639.GE16581@sgi.com \
    --to=bpm@sgi.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox