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=-5.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no 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 AC18AC433DB for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:00:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 768E9619F9 for ; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:00:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236414AbhCXR75 (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:59:57 -0400 Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:38134 "EHLO verein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S236526AbhCXR7k (ORCPT ); Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:59:40 -0400 Received: by verein.lst.de (Postfix, from userid 2407) id 1EF6868B05; Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:59:38 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2021 18:59:37 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] xfs: simplify the perage inode walk infrastructure Message-ID: <20210324175937.GA14862@lst.de> References: <20210324070307.908462-1-hch@lst.de> <20210324070307.908462-3-hch@lst.de> <20210324175735.GX22100@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210324175735.GX22100@magnolia> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:57:35AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 08:03:06AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Remove the generic xfs_inode_walk and just open code the only caller. > > This is going in the wrong direction for me. Maybe. > > I was planning to combine the reclaim inode walk into this function, and > later on share it with inactivation. This made for one switch-happy > iteration function, but it meant there was only one loop. Ok, we can skip this for now if this gets in your way. Or I can resend a different patch 2 that just removes the no tag case for now. > OFC maybe the point that you and/or Dave were trying to make is that I > should be doing the opposite, and combining the inactivation loop into > what is now the (badly misnamed) xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag? And leave this > blockgc loop alone? That is my gut feeling. No guarantee it actually works out, and given that I've lead you down the wrong road a few times I already feel guily ahead of time..