On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 01:24:06AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 10:37:43AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:49:20PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > > xfs_da_grow_inode and xfs_dir2_grow_inode are mostly duplicate code. Factor > > > the meat of those two functions into a new common helper. > > > > Hmmmm. I'm in the process of splitting xfs_dir2_grow_inode() into > > data space vs free space variants so I can play speculative > > preallocation tricks in the directory data space to reduce dataspace > > fragmentation for large directories. Combined with a rework of the > > readir readahead code, it significantly reduces IO count and seeks > > for readdir calls... > > > > I'll probably just rebase on top of this patch, though, because I did > > notice that the two functions were very similar to begin with. ;) > > Are you two variants still sharing the core code? Sort of - there's an extra allocation failure case added (multiple directory block size allocation failure), but otherwise is the same. > If yes rebasing sounds > like the better idea. If the two dir2 variants are different enough > from the da variant I'm fine with postponing this one for now. I'll rebase anyway - the code won't be ready for 3.1 because I haven't yet started on the readahead optimisations that better allocation allows. I also need to add dataspace truncation during inactivation so that we don't leave blocks in the data space "beyond EOF" that repair complains about on clean unmounts. And FWIW, I think I now know enough about how this all works to be able to implement online directory data space defragmentation now... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
