On Thu, Jun 29, 2023 at 04:00:18PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 29-06-23 19:17:19, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote: > > Replace CR_FAST with ext4_mb_cr_expensive() inline function for better > > readability. This function returns true if the criteria is one of the > > expensive/slower ones where lots of disk IO/prefetching is acceptable. > > > > No functional changes are intended in this patch. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Thanks for this cleanup! Feel free to add: > > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > > Just one suggestion for consideration below: > > > @@ -2630,7 +2630,7 @@ static int ext4_mb_good_group_nolock(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac, > > free = grp->bb_free; > > if (free == 0) > > goto out; > > - if (cr <= CR_FAST && free < ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) > > + if (cr <= CR_GOAL_LEN_SLOW && free < ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len) > > Maybe this could be (!ext4_mb_cr_expensive(cr) || cr == CR_GOAL_LEN_SLOW)? > Or maybe more explanatory would be (cr < CR_ANY_FREE) because AFAIU that's > the only scan where we bother scanning groups that have no chance of > satisfying the full allocation? Anyway a short comment explaining this > might be useful. And in either case we can get rid of a bit confusing > CR_FAST define. > > Honza Thanks for the review Jan! I actually had the same idea since it felt like (cr <= CR_GOAL_LEN_SLOW) doesnt clearly express the intent of this check. I think I ultimately decided to leave it untouched to keep things simple. However, I like the idea of making it (cr < CR_ANY_FREE) with a comment to explain the intent behind this condition. If it's fine with everyone I can address it in v2. Regards, ojaswin > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR
