On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:47:25AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:59:02PM +0000, Pankaj Raghav (Samsung) wrote: > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_ialloc.c > > @@ -3019,6 +3019,11 @@ xfs_ialloc_setup_geometry( > > igeo->ialloc_align = mp->m_dalign; > > else > > igeo->ialloc_align = 0; > > + > > + if (mp->m_sb.sb_blocksize > PAGE_SIZE) > > + igeo->min_folio_order = mp->m_sb.sb_blocklog - PAGE_SHIFT; > > + else > > + igeo->min_folio_order = 0; > > } > > The minimum folio order isn't really part of the inode (allocation) > geometry, is it? I suggested it last time around instead of calculating the same constant on every inode allocation. We're already storing in-memory strunct xfs_inode allocation init values in this structure. e.g. in xfs_inode_alloc() we see things like this: ip->i_diflags2 = mp->m_ino_geo.new_diflags2; So that we only calculate the default values for the filesystem once instead of on every inode allocation. This isn't unreasonable because xfs_inode_alloc() is a fairly hot path. The only other place we might store it is the struct xfs_mount, but given all the inode allocation constants are already in the embedded mp->m_ino_geo structure, it just seems like a much better idea to put it will all the other inode allocation constants than dump it randomly into the struct xfs_mount.... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
