Re: [PATCH v4 04/17] maple_tree: introduce mas_wr_store_type()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 9/24/24 9:04 PM, Wei Yang wrote:
On Wed, Aug 14, 2024 at 12:19:31PM -0400, Sidhartha Kumar wrote:

Sorry for a late reply, I just see this change.

+
+/*
+ * mas_wr_store_type() - Set the store type for a given
+ * store operation.
+ * @wr_mas: The maple write state
+ */
+static inline void mas_wr_store_type(struct ma_wr_state *wr_mas)
+{
+	struct ma_state *mas = wr_mas->mas;
+	unsigned char new_end;
+
+	if (unlikely(mas_is_none(mas) || mas_is_ptr(mas))) {
+		mas->store_type = wr_store_root;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (unlikely(!mas_wr_walk(wr_mas))) {
+		mas->store_type = wr_spanning_store;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	/* At this point, we are at the leaf node that needs to be altered. */
+	mas_wr_end_piv(wr_mas);
+	if (!wr_mas->entry)
+		mas_wr_extend_null(wr_mas);
+
+	new_end = mas_wr_new_end(wr_mas);
+	if ((wr_mas->r_min == mas->index) && (wr_mas->r_max == mas->last)) {
+		mas->store_type = wr_exact_fit;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (unlikely(!mas->index && mas->last == ULONG_MAX)) {
+		mas->store_type = wr_new_root;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	/* Potential spanning rebalance collapsing a node */
+	if (new_end < mt_min_slots[wr_mas->type]) {
+		if (!mte_is_root(mas->node)) {
+			mas->store_type = wr_rebalance;
+			return;
+		}
+		mas->store_type = wr_node_store;
+		return;
+	}
After this check, we are sure new_end >= mt_min_slots[wr_mas->type].

+
+	if (new_end >= mt_slots[wr_mas->type]) {
+		mas->store_type = wr_split_store;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) && (mas->offset == mas->end)) {
+		mas->store_type = wr_append;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if ((new_end == mas->end) && (!mt_in_rcu(mas->tree) ||
+		(wr_mas->offset_end - mas->offset == 1))) {
+		mas->store_type = wr_slot_store;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	if (mte_is_root(mas->node) || (new_end >= mt_min_slots[wr_mas->type]) ||
+		(mas->mas_flags & MA_STATE_BULK)) {
The check (new_end >= mt_min_slots[wr_mas->type]) here seems always be true.

So the if here seems not necessary. Do I miss something?

It is true that at this point new_end >= mt_min_slots[wr_mas->type] must be true but if we remove that check we won't catch this wr_node_store case if !mte_is_root() and !(mas->mas_flags & MA_STATE_BULK).

We could change the default store type to be wr_node_store and get rid of that whole if statement entirely.

This diff passes the tests:

diff --git a/lib/maple_tree.c b/lib/maple_tree.c index 4f34e50c92b5..2ae0c4da9d74 100644 --- a/lib/maple_tree.c +++ b/lib/maple_tree.c @@ -4242,14 +4242,7 @@ static inline void mas_wr_store_type(struct ma_wr_state *wr_mas) return; } - if (mte_is_root(mas->node) || (new_end >= mt_min_slots[wr_mas->type]) || - (mas->mas_flags & MA_STATE_BULK)) { - mas->store_type = wr_node_store; - return; - } - - mas->store_type = wr_invalid; - MAS_WARN_ON(mas, 1); + mas->store_type = wr_node_store; }

do you think this makes sense?

Thanks,

Sid

+		mas->store_type = wr_node_store;
+		return;
+	}
+
+	mas->store_type = wr_invalid;
+	MAS_WARN_ON(mas, 1);
+}
+




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux