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=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, UNWANTED_LANGUAGE_BODY,URIBL_BLOCKED,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=unavailable 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 45F8FC43331 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 16801207FC for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:10:41 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="XMRfo9Ke"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="N5W60dK/"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="xsNcr0BY" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 16801207FC Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i6NNI-0000SW-9F; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 23:10:40 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i6NNH-0000SP-4F for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 23:10:39 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qtM8np69bsmqkNyitg1BGkQu58BaFVt0Y5Hny3xwr98=; b=XMRfo9Ke0a9EsgIm/GjSjqcD7h FyY7BQJoFvzHtx6TMEmd/s5rzqz2ya/C4sPMAs/plJbZ+TdYWgYAF/zqfmZjxtueDMJ3TVN0B0oWb Y0FFWIgzgqf3zN0eobg+sIPSyKEGtppPkciGfFzh6F0o7KpzM/TOLnzTp1/bC7OzX6eo=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=qtM8np69bsmqkNyitg1BGkQu58BaFVt0Y5Hny3xwr98=; b=N5W60dK/6LyBTgSm59Xebl5wCA HxUaumDSInOX8GsCTQt9RH2eynJeUuFjEAPo7BkKPMLVlwG4qluGn2DJk/zK3qyCuDqCyxhR7J6bt YnXFHmA/j3z/Fthm2YzS+nw+38lbErVcoEFajxkkXQpoIVZyvrMXQsosNvjVI1IQ7dCk=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) id 1i6NND-00CWdx-D3 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 06 Sep 2019 23:10:39 +0000 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 1873D207FC; Fri, 6 Sep 2019 23:10:28 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567811428; bh=DWOUzOtNS02FNCJ7dP2lQJ0JmC8h3u5IYwib+4bFMaU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=xsNcr0BYg/a3FJLdpndzLhE/qAjADYwt3EYa+zhXyJM2wPJSQ3GfbLZJ7fdPa9TRL Dkd4LUua+0K817a2PHJ3b48FMYI0KHhIJaGXlhIThlEeSSHAi6P3L917Yu2NElTsuP g+2y/UeX9CgU44Y5IqD7PfpVJh3L5SkzODiClCW0= Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2019 16:10:27 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Message-ID: <20190906231027.GB71848@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> References: <20190831095401.8142-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> <20190902225413.GC71929@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <6c5da795-4929-3bb6-fdbf-e103a2bcd431@kernel.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6c5da795-4929-3bb6-fdbf-e103a2bcd431@kernel.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.2 (2017-04-18) X-Headers-End: 1i6NND-00CWdx-D3 Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2 1/2] f2fs: introduce get_available_block_count() for cleanup X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net 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 > >> --- > >> 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 _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel