From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chao@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] f2fs: introduce get_available_block_count() for cleanup
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:54:13 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190902225413.GC71929@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190831095401.8142-1-yuchao0@huawei.com>
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?
>
> - 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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-09-02 22:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-31 9:54 Chao Yu
2019-08-31 9:54 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] f2fs: fix to reserve space for IO align feature Chao Yu
2019-09-02 22:54 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2019-09-02 23:29 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] f2fs: introduce get_available_block_count() for cleanup Chao Yu
2019-09-06 23:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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=20190902225413.GC71929@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
/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
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®