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 E7C86C3A59E for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:30:01 +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 B256F22CF7; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:30:01 +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="L/OMQFvT"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="mpbZpr+o"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="kSTXcfEl" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org B256F22CF7 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-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i4vlp-0003Sw-B4; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:30:01 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1i4vln-0003RZ-UH for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:29:59 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: 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=cjBQI/7cEFwDtymtq8jFW4iX4WWUp827qeUyRe9lUpY=; b=L/OMQFvT2lrECKeE5g4/V+qFst HLO5xDCSGPkG9GeeBT8/1YWm9IKNdPs44MZ8DxcDy0UcBKTb7GoFp+1DFq3/9mO1OfRtrh6pFaa9t CsgiOFm9fh4QgRKOqfu5LrWPf9A+A415nzNEKIhZiSClZAyk+ziFPmDKY0WF3uWBRf9g=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:Cc:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: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=cjBQI/7cEFwDtymtq8jFW4iX4WWUp827qeUyRe9lUpY=; b=mpbZpr+oq/ZthBUYFYYlSHXoVJ Be0uX31kuvpmmJDSmYsNchN0ff1gUg+n3LhD378CkYtkhO8dcagwuG7lwNclDA3SG5/KrZLl1AZ5d JZ6fT40ilXWEORVdwSIbr36kb5d50O8FZBlol/gJl8P/nYHMLkV1ay3S2IVH9O2JMtso=; 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 1i4vlm-007DNh-OC for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 02 Sep 2019 23:29:59 +0000 Received: from [192.168.0.102] (unknown [180.111.100.101]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1949922CF7; Mon, 2 Sep 2019 23:29:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1567466993; bh=jktFROyoNclol0SVpnEc3+lR5Zp2bhVwsBQa5fF6h1Y=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=kSTXcfElviGkco8WfWy6NIeEmeXTfRASF0B+FJaM1EHkxa8LAqPCFXflw2g8UZ/Ox xmp0eSQg2frue27ytelfXXyw63OhSo1SUz//EARj6vx6iURs2ceB8dPCcsoZsQCM2z YABV2JfJdUJCF4uXaRBEZVd8bsWzvNjr07j+BLQI= To: Jaegeuk Kim , Chao Yu References: <20190831095401.8142-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> <20190902225413.GC71929@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: <6c5da795-4929-3bb6-fdbf-e103a2bcd431@kernel.org> Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 07:29:49 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190902225413.GC71929@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US X-Headers-End: 1i4vlm-007DNh-OC 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 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. 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