On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 6:24 AM, David Sterba <dave@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 29, 2012 at 12:30:44PM +0800, zwu.kernel@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> +/* Frees the entire hot_range_tree. */
>> +static void hot_inode_item_free(struct kref *kref)
>> +{
>> + struct hot_comm_item *comm_item = container_of(kref,
>> + struct hot_comm_item, refs);
>> + struct hot_inode_item *he = container_of(comm_item,
>> + struct hot_inode_item, hot_inode);
>> +
>> + hot_range_tree_free(he);
>> + radix_tree_delete(he->hot_inode_tree, he->i_ino);
>
> void *radix_tree_delete(struct radix_tree_root *root, unsigned long index)
>
> and he::i_ino is u64, this will not work when
> sizeof(unsigned long) != sizeof(u64) (iirc this is a known limitation of
> radix tree implementation). This will work on 64bit only, not sure if
> this is intentional.
i actually also realized this. Do you have a better way to handle this?
>
>> + kmem_cache_free(hot_inode_item_cachep, he);
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Frees the entire hot_inode_tree. */
>> +static void hot_inode_tree_exit(struct hot_info *root)
>> +{
>> + struct hot_inode_item *hi_nodes[8];
>> + u64 ino = 0;
>> + int i, n;
>
> nitpick, put the declarations on separate lines
Will it have any issue? It has passed the check of checkpatch.pl.
>
>> +
>> + while (1) {
>> + spin_lock(&root->lock);
>> + n = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&root->hot_inode_tree,
>> + (void **)hi_nodes, ino,
>> + ARRAY_SIZE(hi_nodes));
>> + if (!n) {
>> + spin_unlock(&root->lock);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> +
>> + ino = hi_nodes[n - 1]->i_ino + 1;
>> + for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
>> + hot_inode_item_put(hi_nodes[i]);
>> + spin_unlock(&root->lock);
>> + }
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * Initialize kmem cache for hot_inode_item and hot_range_item.
>> */
>> @@ -106,3 +197,36 @@ err:
>> kmem_cache_destroy(hot_inode_item_cachep);
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hot_cache_init);
>> +
>> +/*
>> + * Initialize the data structures for hot data tracking.
>> + */
>> +int hot_track_init(struct super_block *sb)
>> +{
>> + struct hot_info *root;
>> + int ret = -ENOMEM;
>> +
>> + root = kzalloc(sizeof(struct hot_info), GFP_NOFS);
>> + if (!root) {
>> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s: Failed to malloc memory for "
>> + "hot_info\n", __func__);
>> + return ret;
>
> minor: you can drop the variable ret and just reurn ENOMEM here
This variable will also be used in the following patches.
>
>> + }
>> +
>> + sb->s_hot_root = root;
>> + hot_inode_tree_init(root);
>> +
>> + printk(KERN_INFO "VFS: Turning on hot data tracking\n");
>> +
>> + return 0;
>> +}
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(hot_track_init);
>
> david
--
Regards,
Zhi Yong Wu
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
