From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95677C3A59E for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:54:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 63B1021883 for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:54:18 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567464858; bh=bzZjfZ+mvTNiUmcXg5HlIkB/RRWo5xarRlEOE/jTwTQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-ID:From; b=FEPSEo8K9FNtSnR+vxeTIgXx9XgUypAp9s5k72cUVm1DLCDMfEJbuKylNhRpA8YFJ 13/oEC94sU/jde9t5u40WJPeU7saIQvm3+sjcSGsx1zsKUTQlrSO9kTvsKSMzSaGFV 6pQS9xc7HHJwuadWlu4uZC7PK7CCov49uNAX//wc= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727823AbfIBWyQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 18:54:16 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:44904 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727635AbfIBWyP (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Sep 2019 18:54:15 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [104.132.0.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7FD8F216C8; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 22:54:14 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567464854; bh=bzZjfZ+mvTNiUmcXg5HlIkB/RRWo5xarRlEOE/jTwTQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=xo56DupzfPwOOR3BWemVG1NBwxCFHOMVyZX5kxNNCy46UBRvIcz7lexE7RrvF9iRZ goJhEH0EbHKz9HNXYXWpyq8akpk+WdwE6n8toTDcEJgmSUlQpKT3oSC2RbguXbPJ+5 wmakN/RTdEscGeGa2ArhC93Ees16i7VylZnQI/QA= Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2019 15:54:13 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu 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 Message-ID: <20190902225413.GC71929@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> References: <20190831095401.8142-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190831095401.8142-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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 > --- > 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