On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 06:30:56AM +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2021 at 05:21:40PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Merge these two inode walk loops together, since they're pretty similar
> > now. Get rid of XFS_ICI_NO_TAG since nobody uses it.
>
> The laster user of XFS_ICI_NO_TAG was quotoff, and the last reference
> was removed in "xfs: remove indirect calls from xfs_inode_walk{,_ag}".
> So I think it should be dropped there, or even better in a prep patch
> removing all the XFS_ICI_NO_TAG code before that one.
Ok, moved to patch 3.
> > +static inline bool
> > +selected_for_walk(
> > + unsigned int tag,
> > + struct xfs_inode *ip)
> > +{
> > + switch (tag) {
> > + case XFS_ICI_BLOCKGC_TAG:
> > + return xfs_blockgc_grab(ip);
> > + case XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG:
> > + return xfs_reclaim_inode_grab(ip);
> > + default:
> > + return false;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> Maybe name ths something that starts with xfs_ and ends with _grab?
xfs_grabbed_for_walk?
> > * and release all incore inodes with the given radix tree @tag.
> > @@ -786,12 +803,14 @@ xfs_inode_walk_ag(
> > bool done;
> > int nr_found;
> >
> > - ASSERT(tag == XFS_ICI_BLOCKGC_TAG);
> > + ASSERT(tag < RADIX_TREE_MAX_TAGS);
> >
> > restart:
> > done = false;
> > skipped = 0;
> > first_index = 0;
> > + if (tag == XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG)
> > + first_index = READ_ONCE(pag->pag_ici_reclaim_cursor);
>
> if / else to make this clear?
Done.
> > for (i = 0; i < nr_found; i++) {
> > if (!batch[i])
> > continue;
> > - error = xfs_blockgc_scan_inode(batch[i], eofb);
> > - xfs_irele(batch[i]);
> > + switch (tag) {
> > + case XFS_ICI_BLOCKGC_TAG:
> > + error = xfs_blockgc_scan_inode(batch[i], eofb);
> > + xfs_irele(batch[i]);
> > + break;
> > + case XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG:
> > + xfs_reclaim_inode(batch[i], pag);
> > + error = 0;
>
> Maybe move the irele into xfs_blockgc_scan_inode to make the calling
> conventions more similar?
Ok. I'll also fix the off-by-one error in the nr_to_scan check.
--D
