lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2 1/2] f2fs: introduce get_available_block_count() for cleanup
On 09/03, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2019-9-3 6:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 08/31, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> There are very similar codes in inc_valid_block_count() and
> >> inc_valid_node_count() which is used for available user block
> >> count calculation.
> >>
> >> This patch introduces a new helper get_available_block_count()
> >> to include those common codes, and used it instead for cleanup.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> v2:
> >> - fix panic during recovery
> >> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> index a89ad8cab821..9c010e6cba5c 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> @@ -1756,6 +1756,27 @@ static inline bool __allow_reserved_blocks(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >> return false;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +static inline unsigned int get_available_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >> + struct inode *inode, bool cap)
> >> +{
> >> + block_t avail_user_block_count;
> >> +
> >> + avail_user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count -
> >> + sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
> >> +
> >> + if (!__allow_reserved_blocks(sbi, inode, cap))
> >> + avail_user_block_count -= F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks;
> >> +
> >> + if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED))) {
> >> + if (avail_user_block_count > sbi->unusable_block_count)
> >> + avail_user_block_count -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
> >> + else
> >> + avail_user_block_count = 0;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return avail_user_block_count;
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static inline void f2fs_i_blocks_write(struct inode *, block_t, bool, bool);
> >> static inline int inc_valid_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >> struct inode *inode, blkcnt_t *count)
> >> @@ -1782,17 +1803,8 @@ static inline int inc_valid_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>
> >> spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
> >> sbi->total_valid_block_count += (block_t)(*count);
> >> - avail_user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count -
> >> - sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
> >> + avail_user_block_count = get_available_block_count(sbi, inode, true);
> >>
> >> - if (!__allow_reserved_blocks(sbi, inode, true))
> >> - avail_user_block_count -= F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks;
> >> - if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED))) {
> >> - if (avail_user_block_count > sbi->unusable_block_count)
> >> - avail_user_block_count -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
> >> - else
> >> - avail_user_block_count = 0;
> >> - }
> >> if (unlikely(sbi->total_valid_block_count > avail_user_block_count)) {
> >> diff = sbi->total_valid_block_count - avail_user_block_count;
> >> if (diff > *count)
> >> @@ -2005,7 +2017,8 @@ static inline int inc_valid_node_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >> struct inode *inode, bool is_inode)
> >> {
> >> block_t valid_block_count;
> >> - unsigned int valid_node_count, user_block_count;
> >> + unsigned int valid_node_count;
> >> + unsigned int avail_user_block_count;
> >> int err;
> >>
> >> if (is_inode) {
> >> @@ -2027,16 +2040,10 @@ static inline int inc_valid_node_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>
> >> spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
> >>
> >> - valid_block_count = sbi->total_valid_block_count +
> >> - sbi->current_reserved_blocks + 1;
> >> -
> >> - if (!__allow_reserved_blocks(sbi, inode, false))
> >> - valid_block_count += F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks;
> >> - user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
> >> - if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED)))
> >> - user_block_count -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
> >> + valid_block_count = sbi->total_valid_block_count + 1;
> >> + avail_user_block_count = get_available_block_count(sbi, inode, false);
> >
> > This doesn't look like same?
>
> Actually, calculations of block count in inc_valid_node_count() and
> inc_valid_block_count() should be the same, I've no idea why we use different
> policy for reserved block for root user.

Hmm, for now, let's defer to discuss this.

>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> - if (unlikely(valid_block_count > user_block_count)) {
> >> + if (unlikely(valid_block_count > avail_user_block_count)) {
> >> spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
> >> goto enospc;
> >> }
> >> --
> >> 2.18.0.rc1

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-07 01:11    [W:0.040 / U:30.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site