From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8F5328BF5 for ; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 02:31:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="ePH/0tlJ" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id E6DABC433C8; Wed, 3 Jan 2024 02:31:40 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1704249101; bh=jqcEYrwhfQl0Ho/Hqd90QItq+6SOoi9tlEQ8OEbYU8E=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=ePH/0tlJUvvrw46L373Rsn6shwbAVtGe+RwNn0vouPcWFLkEWwsj+AjEVkqcbU8kl otPy/NN564E4dxKNoFMJkk6NEDHfZ7ks1qw9Kr4HXXJlTOuR/d0ARvb+RoPWZQSljl spdlOWaYrDMyfW/9z32Iih1tV62bKpQ2Bdlfd0N138zjkI9FOVoWfes2Gr8+yt8Jzp 0RYCwHGIYApfa4xr9O3qTmdMkYN5hSFZCmKXozHBflOfx8PGkLQFvVJTWsH/jrouiV OD8bNmp+czzd+He8docYgm32zA6Qs+l+m+ReL2chVi0By8RUA5yP7zk9vtwroa6Z0l S38Rw9EpDsNdQ== Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 18:31:40 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: port refcount repair to the new refcount bag structure Message-ID: <20240103023140.GL361584@frogsfrogsfrogs> References: <170404830995.1749557.6135790697605021363.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> <170404831070.1749557.18013766870623858132.stgit@frogsfrogsfrogs> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: On Tue, Jan 02, 2024 at 02:43:47AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Dec 31, 2023 at 12:20:20PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong > > > > Port the refcount record generating code to use the new refcount bag > > data structure. > > This could again use some comments on why you're doing that. My strong > suspicion is that it will be a lot faster and/or memory efficient, but > please document this for future readers of the commit logs. The new implementation is less memory efficient (because now we have btree headers and internal nodes) but makes it a lot faster. If I turn my reply to patch #2 into the commit message, will that work? --D