public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@gmail.com>
Cc: cem@kernel.org, djwong@kernel.org, hch@infradead.org,
	dchinner@redhat.com, chandanbabu@kernel.org,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@tencent.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] xfs: fix the entry condition of exact EOF block allocation optimization
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2024 07:40:20 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z09stGvgxKV91XfX@dread.disaster.area> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20241130111132.1359138-1-alexjlzheng@tencent.com>

On Sat, Nov 30, 2024 at 07:11:32PM +0800, Jinliang Zheng wrote:
> When we call create(), lseek() and write() sequentially, offset != 0
> cannot be used as a judgment condition for whether the file already
> has extents.
> 
> Furthermore, when xfs_bmap_adjacent() has not given a better blkno,
> it is not necessary to use exact EOF block allocation.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@tencent.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
> - V2: Fix the entry condition
> - V1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/ZyFJm7xg7Msd6eVr@dread.disaster.area/T/#t
> ---
>  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 12 +++++++-----
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> index 36dd08d13293..c1e5372b6b2e 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> @@ -3531,12 +3531,14 @@ xfs_bmap_btalloc_at_eof(
>  	int			error;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * If there are already extents in the file, try an exact EOF block
> -	 * allocation to extend the file as a contiguous extent. If that fails,
> -	 * or it's the first allocation in a file, just try for a stripe aligned
> -	 * allocation.
> +	 * If there are already extents in the file, and xfs_bmap_adjacent() has
> +	 * given a better blkno, try an exact EOF block allocation to extend the
> +	 * file as a contiguous extent. If that fails, or it's the first
> +	 * allocation in a file, just try for a stripe aligned allocation.
>  	 */
> -	if (ap->offset) {
> +	if (ap->prev.br_startoff != NULLFILEOFF &&
> +	     !isnullstartblock(ap->prev.br_startblock) &&
> +	     xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid(ap, ap->blkno, ap->prev.br_startblock)) {

There's no need for calling xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid() here -
we know that ap->blkno is valid because the
bounds checking has already been done by xfs_bmap_adjacent().

Actually, for another patch, the bounds checking in
xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid() is incorrect. What happens if the last AG
is a runt? i.e. it open codes xfs_verify_fsbno() and gets it wrong.

-Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  reply	other threads:[~2024-12-03 20:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-11-30 11:11 [RESEND PATCH v2] xfs: fix the entry condition of exact EOF block allocation optimization Jinliang Zheng
2024-12-03 20:40 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2024-12-05 12:18   ` Jinliang Zheng
2024-12-05 23:48     ` 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=Z09stGvgxKV91XfX@dread.disaster.area \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=alexjlzheng@gmail.com \
    --cc=alexjlzheng@tencent.com \
    --cc=cem@kernel.org \
    --cc=chandanbabu@kernel.org \
    --cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
    --cc=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --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