From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
davej@redhat.com, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, jack@suse.cz,
glommer@parallels.com
Subject: [PATCH 05/11] inode: rename i_wb_list to i_io_list
Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2013 14:15:44 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1375244150-27296-6-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1375244150-27296-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>
From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
There's a small consistency problem between the inode and writeback
naming. Writeback calls the "for IO" inode queues b_io and
b_more_io, but the inode calls these the "writeback list" or
i_wb_list. This makes it hard to an new "under writeback" list to
the inode, or call it an "under IO" list on the bdi because either
way we'll have writeback on IO and IO on writeback and it'll just be
confusing. I'm getting confused just writing this!
So, rename the inode "for IO" list variable to i_io_list so we can
add a new "writeback list" in a subsequent patch.
Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
---
fs/block_dev.c | 2 +-
fs/fs-writeback.c | 18 +++++++++---------
fs/inode.c | 6 +++---
include/linux/fs.h | 2 +-
mm/backing-dev.c | 6 +++---
5 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/block_dev.c b/fs/block_dev.c
index c39c0f3..bec0c26 100644
--- a/fs/block_dev.c
+++ b/fs/block_dev.c
@@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ static void bdev_inode_switch_bdi(struct inode *inode,
if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) {
if (bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(dst) && !wb_has_dirty_io(&dst->wb))
wakeup_bdi = true;
- list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &dst->wb.b_dirty);
+ list_move(&inode->i_io_list, &dst->wb.b_dirty);
}
spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
spin_unlock(&old->wb.list_lock);
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index 56272ec..b7ac1c2 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ static inline struct backing_dev_info *inode_to_bdi(struct inode *inode)
static inline struct inode *wb_inode(struct list_head *head)
{
- return list_entry(head, struct inode, i_wb_list);
+ return list_entry(head, struct inode, i_io_list);
}
/*
@@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ void inode_wb_list_del(struct inode *inode)
struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(inode);
spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
- list_del_init(&inode->i_wb_list);
+ list_del_init(&inode->i_io_list);
spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
}
@@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ static void redirty_tail(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb)
if (time_before(inode->dirtied_when, tail->dirtied_when))
inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
}
- list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &wb->b_dirty);
+ list_move(&inode->i_io_list, &wb->b_dirty);
}
/*
@@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void redirty_tail(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb)
static void requeue_io(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb)
{
assert_spin_locked(&wb->list_lock);
- list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &wb->b_more_io);
+ list_move(&inode->i_io_list, &wb->b_more_io);
}
static void inode_sync_complete(struct inode *inode)
@@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ static int move_expired_inodes(struct list_head *delaying_queue,
if (sb && sb != inode->i_sb)
do_sb_sort = 1;
sb = inode->i_sb;
- list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &tmp);
+ list_move(&inode->i_io_list, &tmp);
moved++;
}
@@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ static int move_expired_inodes(struct list_head *delaying_queue,
list_for_each_prev_safe(pos, node, &tmp) {
inode = wb_inode(pos);
if (inode->i_sb == sb)
- list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, dispatch_queue);
+ list_move(&inode->i_io_list, dispatch_queue);
}
}
out:
@@ -418,7 +418,7 @@ static void requeue_inode(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb,
redirty_tail(inode, wb);
} else {
/* The inode is clean. Remove from writeback lists. */
- list_del_init(&inode->i_wb_list);
+ list_del_init(&inode->i_io_list);
}
}
@@ -528,7 +528,7 @@ writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb,
* touch it. See comment above for explanation.
*/
if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY))
- list_del_init(&inode->i_wb_list);
+ list_del_init(&inode->i_io_list);
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
inode_sync_complete(inode);
out:
@@ -1193,7 +1193,7 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags)
spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
- list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &bdi->wb.b_dirty);
+ list_move(&inode->i_io_list, &bdi->wb.b_dirty);
spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
if (wakeup_bdi)
diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
index cd10287..f8e0f2f 100644
--- a/fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/inode.c
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@
* inode->i_sb->s_inode_list_lock protects:
* inode->i_sb->s_inodes, inode->i_sb_list
* bdi->wb.list_lock protects:
- * bdi->wb.b_{dirty,io,more_io}, inode->i_wb_list
+ * bdi->wb.b_{dirty,io,more_io}, inode->i_io_list
* inode_hash_lock protects:
* inode_hashtable, inode->i_hash
*
@@ -364,7 +364,7 @@ void inode_init_once(struct inode *inode)
memset(inode, 0, sizeof(*inode));
INIT_HLIST_NODE(&inode->i_hash);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_devices);
- INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_wb_list);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_io_list);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&inode->i_lru);
address_space_init_once(&inode->i_data);
i_size_ordered_init(inode);
@@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ static void evict(struct inode *inode)
BUG_ON(!(inode->i_state & I_FREEING));
BUG_ON(!list_empty(&inode->i_lru));
- if (!list_empty(&inode->i_wb_list))
+ if (!list_empty(&inode->i_io_list))
inode_wb_list_del(inode);
inode_sb_list_del(inode);
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 971e8be..b99eb39 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -576,7 +576,7 @@ struct inode {
unsigned long dirtied_when; /* jiffies of first dirtying */
struct hlist_node i_hash;
- struct list_head i_wb_list; /* backing dev IO list */
+ struct list_head i_io_list; /* backing dev IO list */
struct list_head i_lru; /* inode LRU list */
struct list_head i_sb_list;
union {
diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
index e04454c..024d4ca 100644
--- a/mm/backing-dev.c
+++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
@@ -74,11 +74,11 @@ static int bdi_debug_stats_show(struct seq_file *m, void *v)
nr_dirty = nr_io = nr_more_io = 0;
spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
- list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_dirty, i_wb_list)
+ list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_dirty, i_io_list)
nr_dirty++;
- list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_io, i_wb_list)
+ list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_io, i_io_list)
nr_io++;
- list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_more_io, i_wb_list)
+ list_for_each_entry(inode, &wb->b_more_io, i_io_list)
nr_more_io++;
spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
--
1.8.3.2
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-07-31 4:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-07-31 4:15 [PATCH 00/11] Sync and VFS scalability improvements Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 01/11] writeback: plug writeback at a high level Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 14:40 ` Jan Kara
2013-08-01 5:48 ` Dave Chinner
2013-08-01 8:34 ` Jan Kara
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 02/11] inode: add IOP_NOTHASHED to avoid inode hash lock in evict Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 14:44 ` Jan Kara
2013-08-01 8:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-08-02 1:11 ` Dave Chinner
2013-08-02 14:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 03/11] inode: convert inode_sb_list_lock to per-sb Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 14:48 ` Jan Kara
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 04/11] sync: serialise per-superblock sync operations Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 15:12 ` Jan Kara
2013-07-31 4:15 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2013-07-31 14:51 ` [PATCH 05/11] inode: rename i_wb_list to i_io_list Jan Kara
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 06/11] bdi: add a new writeback list for sync Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 15:11 ` Jan Kara
2013-08-01 5:59 ` Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 07/11] writeback: periodically trim the writeback list Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 15:15 ` Jan Kara
2013-08-01 6:16 ` Dave Chinner
2013-08-01 9:03 ` Jan Kara
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 08/11] inode: convert per-sb inode list to a list_lru Dave Chinner
2013-08-01 8:19 ` Christoph Hellwig
2013-08-02 1:06 ` Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 09/11] fs: Use RCU lookups for inode cache Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 10/11] list_lru: don't need node lock in list_lru_count_node Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 4:15 ` [PATCH 11/11] list_lru: don't lock during add/del if unnecessary Dave Chinner
2013-07-31 6:48 ` [PATCH 00/11] Sync and VFS scalability improvements Sedat Dilek
2013-08-01 6:19 ` Dave Chinner
2013-08-01 6:31 ` Sedat Dilek
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1375244150-27296-6-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=glommer@parallels.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).