From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from szxga07-in.huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) (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 6D8C71DA32B for ; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 06:22:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.35 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719987774; cv=none; b=q1rA9QYOIc6u3ozTyNJd7U7ziDyXEUA3ZuVCi1CFIe8ffxKYaY6lJ3bDSLO/hYKphHNDP39wt4wj+lzjXwzZp6nID4gVA+1ECErXtXBvxFCqCZFsHOHzsMQjZgv5o7tc+K8uOyG/oD6Q/lJFbOHQnNRrBGIcjnSW+buLf32KYgI= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1719987774; c=relaxed/simple; bh=tnlFSmDwfz2cf79IY57tLfaqJret+pTtUc2aNJtJ7qY=; h=Date:From:To:CC:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=NcskqeCxHdBYjhNJ2Z42hneFAUqC+ztoCAPwUEQNTpEQxJ0GJMzCn256xqNDxKRq/YnZIUBr651C0TytNWlomQb04pCcSzuLceEZ5RYhOG4m75b4MUV5b95FhkaH4VrCNAXTHEedlKvsUJRplzdNWUVAhqdjgjzDvCX4Zw/0Bws= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com; arc=none smtp.client-ip=45.249.212.35 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=huawei.com Received: from mail.maildlp.com (unknown [172.19.88.163]) by szxga07-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4WDV2w4WJpz1X4Ks; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:18:32 +0800 (CST) Received: from kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com (unknown [7.221.188.199]) by mail.maildlp.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07E06180028; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:22:39 +0800 (CST) Received: from localhost (10.175.127.227) by kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.199) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.1.2507.39; Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:22:38 +0800 Date: Wed, 3 Jul 2024 14:33:55 +0800 From: Long Li To: "Darrick J. Wong" CC: , , , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: get rid of xfs_ag_resv_rmapbt_alloc Message-ID: <20240703063355.GA518841@ceph-admin> References: <20240702134851.2654558-1-leo.lilong@huawei.com> <20240703051446.GF612460@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="utf-8" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240703051446.GF612460@frogsfrogsfrogs> X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To kwepemi500009.china.huawei.com (7.221.188.199) On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 10:14:46PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, Jul 02, 2024 at 09:48:51PM +0800, Long Li wrote: > > The pag in xfs_ag_resv_rmapbt_alloc() is already held when the struct > > xfs_btree_cur is initialized in xfs_rmapbt_init_cursor(), so there is no > > need to get pag again. > > > > On the other hand, in xfs_rmapbt_free_block(), the similar function > > xfs_ag_resv_rmapbt_free() was removed in commit 92a005448f6f ("xfs: get > > rid of unnecessary xfs_perag_{get,put} pairs"), xfs_ag_resv_rmapbt_alloc() > > was left because scrub used it, but now scrub has removed it. Therefore, > > we could get rid of xfs_ag_resv_rmapbt_alloc() just like the rmap free > > block, make the code cleaner. > > > > Signed-off-by: Long Li > > --- > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h | 19 ------------------- > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_rmap_btree.c | 8 +++++++- > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h > > index ff20ed93de77..f247eeff7358 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ag_resv.h > > @@ -33,23 +33,4 @@ xfs_perag_resv( > > } > > } > > > > -/* > > - * RMAPBT reservation accounting wrappers. Since rmapbt blocks are sourced from > > - * the AGFL, they are allocated one at a time and the reservation updates don't > > - * require a transaction. > > - */ > > -static inline void > > -xfs_ag_resv_rmapbt_alloc( > > - struct xfs_mount *mp, > > - xfs_agnumber_t agno) > > -{ > > - struct xfs_alloc_arg args = { NULL }; > > - struct xfs_perag *pag; > > - > > - args.len = 1; > > - pag = xfs_perag_get(mp, agno); > > - xfs_ag_resv_alloc_extent(pag, XFS_AG_RESV_RMAPBT, &args); > > - xfs_perag_put(pag); > > -} > > - > > #endif /* __XFS_AG_RESV_H__ */ > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_rmap_btree.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_rmap_btree.c > > index 9e759efa81cc..aa1d29814b74 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_rmap_btree.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_rmap_btree.c > > @@ -88,6 +88,7 @@ xfs_rmapbt_alloc_block( > > struct xfs_buf *agbp = cur->bc_ag.agbp; > > struct xfs_agf *agf = agbp->b_addr; > > struct xfs_perag *pag = cur->bc_ag.pag; > > + struct xfs_alloc_arg args = { NULL }; > > You could make this even more compact with > > struct xfs_alloc_arg args = { .len = 1 }; It's ok for me, I will send a new version. thanks! > > Otherwise this looks ok to me as a cleanup. > > --D > > > int error; > > xfs_agblock_t bno; > > > > @@ -107,7 +108,12 @@ xfs_rmapbt_alloc_block( > > be32_add_cpu(&agf->agf_rmap_blocks, 1); > > xfs_alloc_log_agf(cur->bc_tp, agbp, XFS_AGF_RMAP_BLOCKS); > > > > - xfs_ag_resv_rmapbt_alloc(cur->bc_mp, pag->pag_agno); > > + /* > > + * Since rmapbt blocks are sourced from the AGFL, they are allocated one > > + * at a time and the reservation updates don't require a transaction. > > + */ > > + args.len = 1; > > + xfs_ag_resv_alloc_extent(pag, XFS_AG_RESV_RMAPBT, &args); > > > > *stat = 1; > > return 0; > > -- > > 2.39.2 > > > >