* [PATCH] Btrfs: kill free_space pointer from inode structure
@ 2012-07-10 2:21 Li Zefan
2012-07-10 19:29 ` Josef Bacik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Li Zefan @ 2012-07-10 2:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
Inodes always allocate free space with BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA type,
which means every inode has the same BTRFS_I(inode)->free_space pointer.
This shrinks struct btrfs_inode by 4 bytes (or 8 bytes on 64 bits).
Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
---
fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h | 3 ---
fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 3 ++-
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 20 ++++++++------------
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 3 ---
4 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index 12394a9..0b18b74 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
@@ -87,9 +87,6 @@ struct btrfs_inode {
/* node for the red-black tree that links inodes in subvolume root */
struct rb_node rb_node;
- /* the space_info for where this inode's data allocations are done */
- struct btrfs_space_info *space_info;
-
unsigned long runtime_flags;
/* full 64 bit generation number, struct vfs_inode doesn't have a big
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
index fa5c45b..6761490 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
@@ -1240,6 +1240,8 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info {
*/
struct list_head space_info;
+ struct btrfs_space_info *data_sinfo;
+
struct reloc_control *reloc_ctl;
spinlock_t delalloc_lock;
@@ -2607,7 +2609,6 @@ int btrfs_remove_block_group(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
struct btrfs_root *root, u64 group_start);
u64 btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile(struct btrfs_root *root, u64 flags);
u64 btrfs_get_alloc_profile(struct btrfs_root *root, int data);
-void btrfs_set_inode_space_info(struct btrfs_root *root, struct inode *ionde);
void btrfs_clear_space_info_full(struct btrfs_fs_info *info);
int btrfs_check_data_free_space(struct inode *inode, u64 bytes);
void btrfs_free_reserved_data_space(struct inode *inode, u64 bytes);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index bbab3ff..b1336f5 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -3133,6 +3133,8 @@ static int update_space_info(struct btrfs_fs_info *info, u64 flags,
init_waitqueue_head(&found->wait);
*space_info = found;
list_add_rcu(&found->list, &info->space_info);
+ if (flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA)
+ info->data_sinfo = found;
return 0;
}
@@ -3262,12 +3264,6 @@ u64 btrfs_get_alloc_profile(struct btrfs_root *root, int data)
return get_alloc_profile(root, flags);
}
-void btrfs_set_inode_space_info(struct btrfs_root *root, struct inode *inode)
-{
- BTRFS_I(inode)->space_info = __find_space_info(root->fs_info,
- BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
-}
-
/*
* This will check the space that the inode allocates from to make sure we have
* enough space for bytes.
@@ -3276,6 +3272,7 @@ int btrfs_check_data_free_space(struct inode *inode, u64 bytes)
{
struct btrfs_space_info *data_sinfo;
struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(inode)->root;
+ struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = root->fs_info;
u64 used;
int ret = 0, committed = 0, alloc_chunk = 1;
@@ -3288,7 +3285,7 @@ int btrfs_check_data_free_space(struct inode *inode, u64 bytes)
committed = 1;
}
- data_sinfo = BTRFS_I(inode)->space_info;
+ data_sinfo = fs_info->data_sinfo;
if (!data_sinfo)
goto alloc;
@@ -3329,10 +3326,9 @@ alloc:
goto commit_trans;
}
- if (!data_sinfo) {
- btrfs_set_inode_space_info(root, inode);
- data_sinfo = BTRFS_I(inode)->space_info;
- }
+ if (!data_sinfo)
+ data_sinfo = fs_info->data_sinfo;
+
goto again;
}
@@ -3379,7 +3375,7 @@ void btrfs_free_reserved_data_space(struct inode *inode, u64 bytes)
/* make sure bytes are sectorsize aligned */
bytes = (bytes + root->sectorsize - 1) & ~((u64)root->sectorsize - 1);
- data_sinfo = BTRFS_I(inode)->space_info;
+ data_sinfo = root->fs_info->data_sinfo;
spin_lock(&data_sinfo->lock);
data_sinfo->bytes_may_use -= bytes;
trace_btrfs_space_reservation(root->fs_info, "space_info",
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 0d507e6..b189dd8 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -4077,7 +4077,6 @@ static int btrfs_init_locked_inode(struct inode *inode, void *p)
struct btrfs_iget_args *args = p;
inode->i_ino = args->ino;
BTRFS_I(inode)->root = args->root;
- btrfs_set_inode_space_info(args->root, inode);
return 0;
}
@@ -4662,7 +4661,6 @@ static struct inode *btrfs_new_inode(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
BTRFS_I(inode)->root = root;
BTRFS_I(inode)->generation = trans->transid;
inode->i_generation = BTRFS_I(inode)->generation;
- btrfs_set_inode_space_info(root, inode);
if (S_ISDIR(mode))
owner = 0;
@@ -6939,7 +6937,6 @@ struct inode *btrfs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
return NULL;
ei->root = NULL;
- ei->space_info = NULL;
ei->generation = 0;
ei->last_trans = 0;
ei->last_sub_trans = 0;
--
1.7.9.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: kill free_space pointer from inode structure
2012-07-10 2:21 [PATCH] Btrfs: kill free_space pointer from inode structure Li Zefan
@ 2012-07-10 19:29 ` Josef Bacik
2012-07-12 1:38 ` Li Zefan
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Josef Bacik @ 2012-07-10 19:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Li Zefan; +Cc: linux-btrfs
On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:21:07PM -0600, Li Zefan wrote:
> Inodes always allocate free space with BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA type,
> which means every inode has the same BTRFS_I(inode)->free_space pointer.
>
> This shrinks struct btrfs_inode by 4 bytes (or 8 bytes on 64 bits).
>
> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
Li I can't apply any of your patches because they are all in base64 format and
I'm having a hell of a time pulling them out to apply them, can you resend with
git send-email or something so I can apply them properly? Thanks,
Josef
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: kill free_space pointer from inode structure
2012-07-10 19:29 ` Josef Bacik
@ 2012-07-12 1:38 ` Li Zefan
2012-07-12 13:27 ` Josef Bacik
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Li Zefan @ 2012-07-12 1:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Josef Bacik; +Cc: linux-btrfs
On 2012/7/11 3:29, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:21:07PM -0600, Li Zefan wrote:
>> Inodes always allocate free space with BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA type,
>> which means every inode has the same BTRFS_I(inode)->free_space pointer.
>>
>> This shrinks struct btrfs_inode by 4 bytes (or 8 bytes on 64 bits).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
>
> Li I can't apply any of your patches because they are all in base64 format and
> I'm having a hell of a time pulling them out to apply them, can you resend with
> git send-email or something so I can apply them properly? Thanks,
>
Hmm.. I got no complaints from Tejun or Chris before, so I didn't realize all
the emails I sent were in base64. It should be the email server that encoded
my patches, so I don't think using git-send-email will make any difference.
(not to mention I failed to make git-send-email work in my office :(
Is it ok if I attach the patches in attachments? Otherwise I'll use gmail
instead when I'm at home.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: kill free_space pointer from inode structure
2012-07-12 1:38 ` Li Zefan
@ 2012-07-12 13:27 ` Josef Bacik
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Josef Bacik @ 2012-07-12 13:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Li Zefan; +Cc: Josef Bacik, linux-btrfs
On Wed, Jul 11, 2012 at 07:38:11PM -0600, Li Zefan wrote:
> On 2012/7/11 3:29, Josef Bacik wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 09, 2012 at 08:21:07PM -0600, Li Zefan wrote:
> >> Inodes always allocate free space with BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA type,
> >> which means every inode has the same BTRFS_I(inode)->free_space pointer.
> >>
> >> This shrinks struct btrfs_inode by 4 bytes (or 8 bytes on 64 bits).
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Li Zefan <lizefan@huawei.com>
> >
> > Li I can't apply any of your patches because they are all in base64 format and
> > I'm having a hell of a time pulling them out to apply them, can you resend with
> > git send-email or something so I can apply them properly? Thanks,
> >
>
>
> Hmm.. I got no complaints from Tejun or Chris before, so I didn't realize all
> the emails I sent were in base64. It should be the email server that encoded
> my patches, so I don't think using git-send-email will make any difference.
> (not to mention I failed to make git-send-email work in my office :(
>
> Is it ok if I attach the patches in attachments? Otherwise I'll use gmail
> instead when I'm at home.
>
Sorry I'll just pull them out somewhere else, for some reason notmuch doesn't
want to decode them properly so I just get garbage. I'll just pull it out of
thunderbird by hand, hopefully that will work properly. Thanks,
Josef
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-07-12 13:27 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-07-10 2:21 [PATCH] Btrfs: kill free_space pointer from inode structure Li Zefan
2012-07-10 19:29 ` Josef Bacik
2012-07-12 1:38 ` Li Zefan
2012-07-12 13:27 ` Josef Bacik
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.