Re: [RFC PATCH 10/11] xfs: update the finobt on inode free

Brian Foster
2013-09-05T16:22:51Z

On 09/04/2013 10:54 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 02:25:07PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> An inode free operation can have several effects on the finobt. If
>> all inodes have been freed and the chunk deallocated, we remove the
>> finobt record. If the inode chunk was previously full, we must
>> insert a new record based on the existing inobt record. Otherwise,
>> we modify the record in place.
>>
>> Create the xfs_ifree_finobt() function to identify the potential
>> scenarios and update the finobt appropriately.
>
> The first thing I'd do is factor all the inobt manipulation
> code xfs_difree() into a xfs_difree_inobt() helper function. have it
> return the record and offset that is then passed to your new helper
> xfs_difree_finobt(). That way xfs_difree() really becomes the setup
> function for the two btree operations rather than containing one set
> of modifications and calling a function to do the other...
>

Sounds logical.

>> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 120 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 120 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
>> index 516f4af..96f71b5 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c
>> @@ -198,6 +198,117 @@ xfs_inobt_insert(
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> + * Free an inode in the free inode btree.
>> + */
>> +STATIC int
>> +xfs_ifree_finobt(
...
>
> I can't say I'm a great fan of the layout of the logic. Yes, there's
> lots of cases to handle. It looks like:
>

Yeah, I've shuffled this code around quite a bit myself.

> lookup()
> if (found)
> modify in place
> if (found && full && deleting chunks)
> delete record
> else if (!found && no record)
> insert record
> else if (found)
> update record
> else
> corruption!
>
> I think it woul dbe better to get then "!found" case out of the way
> at the start. ie
>
> if (i == 0) {
> if (ibtrec->ir_freecount == 1)
> insert record
> else
> CORRUPTION
> goto out;
> }
>
> /* found a record, no need to check i == 1 anymore */
> ASSERT(i == 1);
>
> /* read and update */
>
> if (full && deleting chunks)
> delete record
> else
> update record
>

Ok, I'll try to pull that logic up and see what falls out.

...
>> + } else if ((i == 0) && (ibtrec->ir_freecount == 1)) {
>> + /*
>> + * No existing finobt record and the inobt record has a single
>> + * free inode. This means we've freed an inode in a previously
>> + * fully allocated chunk. Insert a new record into the finobt
>> + * based on the current inobt record.
>> + */
>> + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_startino = ibtrec->ir_startino;
>> + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_free = ibtrec->ir_free;
>> + cur->bc_rec.i.ir_freecount = ibtrec->ir_freecount;
>> + error = xfs_btree_insert(cur, &i);
>> + if (error)
>> + goto error;
>> + ASSERT(i == 1);
>
> That's rather similar to the code in xfs_inobt_insert(). Indeed,
> is you write a helper - xfs_inobt_insert_rec() - for this, then rather than modifying
> xfs_inobt_lookup() to take extra parameters like I wondered for the
> previous patch, leave it alonge and pass the parameters to
> xfs_inobt_insert_rec() instead.
>
> Then this code is functionally identical to xfs_inobt_insert() done
> during allocation....
>

I think I'm parsing you after having another look at the code.
xfs_inobt_lookup() remains as is and is potentially used from
xfs_inobt_insert(). xfs_inobt_insert_rec() is introduced to set the
cursor fields and do the insert and is used here and from
xfs_inobt_insert().

At that point, this looks close to xfs_inobt_insert(), but I think using
that here would introduce a duplicate lookup. Regardless, we'll see what
the whole thing looks like at that point. Thanks for the reviews. :)

Brian

> Cheers,
>
> Dave.