public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] xfs: replace xfs_buf_incore with an XBF_NOALLOC flag to xfs_buf_get*
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2022 07:54:43 +1000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220403215443.GO1544202@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220403120119.235457-3-hch@lst.de>

On Sun, Apr 03, 2022 at 02:01:16PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> Replace the special purpose xfs_buf_incore interface with a new
> XBF_NOALLOC flag for the xfs_buf_get* routines.

I think this is the wrong direction to go in the greater scheme of
things. _XBF_NOALLOC needs to be an internal implementation detail
similar to _XBF_PAGES, not exposed as part of the caller API.

That is, xfs_buf_incore() clearly documents the operation "return me
the locked buffer if it currently cached in memory" that the callers
want, while XBF_NOALLOC doesn't clearly mean anything as obvious as
this at the caller level.  Hence I'd prefer this to end up as:

/*
 * Lock and return the buffer that matches the requested range if
 * and only if it is present in the cache already.
 */
static inline struct xfs_buf *
xfs_buf_incore(
	struct xfs_buftarg	*target,
	xfs_daddr_t		blkno,
	size_t			numblks,
	xfs_buf_flags_t		flags)
{
	struct xfs_buf		*bp;
	int			error;
	DEFINE_SINGLE_BUF_MAP(map, blkno, numblks);

	error = xfs_buf_get_map(target, &map, 1, _XBF_NOALLOC | flags,
				NULL, &bp);
	if (error)
		return NULL;
	return bp;
}

Then none of the external callers need to be changed, and we don't
introduce new external xfs_buf_get() callers.


> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> ---
>  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_remote.c |  6 +++---
>  fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c           |  6 +++---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c                | 22 +++-------------------
>  fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h                |  5 +----
>  fs/xfs/xfs_qm.c                 |  6 +++---
>  5 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_remote.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_remote.c
> index 3fc62ff92441d5..9aff2ce203c9b6 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_remote.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_attr_remote.c
> @@ -550,10 +550,10 @@ xfs_attr_rmtval_stale(
>  	    XFS_IS_CORRUPT(mp, map->br_startblock == HOLESTARTBLOCK))
>  		return -EFSCORRUPTED;
>  
> -	bp = xfs_buf_incore(mp->m_ddev_targp,
> +	if (!xfs_buf_get(mp->m_ddev_targp,
>  			XFS_FSB_TO_DADDR(mp, map->br_startblock),
> -			XFS_FSB_TO_BB(mp, map->br_blockcount), incore_flags);
> -	if (bp) {
> +			XFS_FSB_TO_BB(mp, map->br_blockcount),
> +			incore_flags | XBF_NOALLOC, &bp)) {
>  		xfs_buf_stale(bp);
>  		xfs_buf_relse(bp);
>  	}

FWIW, I also think that the this pattern change is a regression.
We've spent the past decade+ moving function calls that return
objects and errors out of if() scope to clean up the code. Reversing
that pattern here doesn't make the code cleaner...

Cheers,

Dave.

-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  reply	other threads:[~2022-04-03 21:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-04-03 12:01 lockless and cleaned up buffer lookup Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 1/5] xfs: add a flags argument to xfs_buf_get Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 2/5] xfs: replace xfs_buf_incore with an XBF_NOALLOC flag to xfs_buf_get* Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 21:54   ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2022-04-05 14:55     ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-05 21:21       ` Dave Chinner
2022-04-06 16:24         ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 3/5] xfs: remove a superflous hash lookup when inserting new buffers Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 23:04   ` Dave Chinner
2022-04-05 15:00     ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-05 22:01       ` Dave Chinner
2022-04-06 16:26         ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 4/5] xfs: reduce the number of atomic when locking a buffer after lookup Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-03 12:01 ` [PATCH 5/5] xfs: lockless buffer lookup Christoph Hellwig

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=20220403215443.GO1544202@dread.disaster.area \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /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