On Wed 02-06-21 17:55:16, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> Currently only a single inode can be switched to another writeback
> structure at once. That means to switch an inode a separate
> inode_switch_wbs_context structure must be allocated, and a separate
> rcu callback and work must be scheduled.
>
> It's fine for the existing ad-hoc switching, which is not happening
> that often, but sub-optimal for massive switching required in order to
> release a writeback structure. To prepare for it, let's add a support
> for switching multiple inodes at once.
>
> Instead of containing a single inode pointer, inode_switch_wbs_context
> will contain a NULL-terminated array of inode
> pointers. inode_do_switch_wbs() will be called for each inode.
>
> Signed-off-by: Roman Gushchin <guro@xxxxxx>
Two small comments below:
> @@ -473,10 +473,14 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct inode_switch_wbs_context *isw =
> container_of(to_rcu_work(work), struct inode_switch_wbs_context, work);
> + struct inode **inodep;
> +
> + for (inodep = &isw->inodes[0]; *inodep; inodep++) {
^^^^ why not just isw->inodes?
> + inode_do_switch_wbs(*inodep, isw->new_wb);
> + iput(*inodep);
> + }
I was kind of hoping that we would save the repeated locking of
bdi->wb_switch_rwsem, old_wb->list_lock, and new_wb->list_lock for multiple
inodes. Maybe we can have 'old_wb' as part of isw as well and assert that
all inodes are still attached to the old_wb at this point to make this a
bit simpler. Or we can fetch old_wb from the first inode and then just
lock & assert using that one.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
