On 09/28/2012 03:21 AM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 01:45:49PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> xfs_inodes_free_eofblocks() implements scanning functionality for
>> EOFBLOCKS inodes. It uses the AG iterator to walk the tagged inodes
>> and free post-EOF blocks via the xfs_inode_free_eofblocks() execute
>> function. The scan can be invoked in best-effort mode or wait
>> (force) mode.
>>
>> A best-effort scan (default) handles all inodes that do not have a
>> dirty cache and we successfully acquire the io lock via trylock. In
>> wait mode, we continue to cycle through an AG until all inodes are
>> handled.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> xfs_icache.c rebase, and...
>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> fs/xfs/xfs_sync.h | 1 +
>> fs/xfs/xfs_trace.h | 1 +
>> 3 files changed, 42 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c
>> index 0da93c9..6854800 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_sync.c
>> @@ -1014,6 +1014,46 @@ xfs_reclaim_inodes_count(
>> return reclaimable;
>> }
>>
>> +STATIC int
>> +xfs_inode_free_eofblocks(
>> + struct xfs_inode *ip,
>> + struct xfs_perag *pag,
>> + int flags,
>> + void *args)
>> +{
>> + int ret;
>> + bool force = flags & SYNC_WAIT;
>> +
>> + if (!xfs_can_free_eofblocks(ip, false)) {
>> + /* inode could be preallocated or append-only */
>> + trace_xfs_inode_free_eofblocks_invalid(ip);
>> + xfs_inode_clear_eofblocks_tag(ip);
>> + return 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!force && mapping_tagged(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping,
>> + PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))
>> + return 0;
>
> This reads rather strangely. I'd prefer that you don't use a "force"
> variable because we're not really "forcing" anything. SYNC_WAIT is
> telling us if we should block (wait) or not. i.e.
>
> /*
> * if the mapping is dirty the operation can block and wait
> * for some time. So unless we are waiting, skip it.
> */
> if (!(flags & SYNC_WAIT) &&
> (mapping_tagged(VFS_I(ip)->i_mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY))
> return 0;
>
> makes more sense and is consistent with xfs_reclaim_inode() usage.
>
Fair enough. I was thinking of the "force" scan mode as I called it, but
as you point out in the next patch that's inconsistently named as well.
Will fix.
>> + ret = xfs_free_eofblocks(ip->i_mount, ip, true);
>> +
>> + /* ignore EAGAIN on a best effort scan */
>> + if (!force && (ret == EAGAIN))
>> + ret = 0;
>
> /* don't revisit the inode if we not waiting */
> if (ret == EAGAIN && !(flags & SYNC_WAIT))
> return 0;
> return ret;
>> +
>> + return ret;
>> +}
>> +
>> +int
>> +xfs_inodes_free_eofblocks(
>> + struct xfs_mount *mp,
>> + int flags)
>> +{
>> + ASSERT((flags & ~(SYNC_TRYLOCK|SYNC_WAIT)) == 0);
>> + return xfs_inode_ag_iterator_tag(mp, xfs_inode_free_eofblocks, flags,
>> + NULL, XFS_ICI_EOFBLOCKS_TAG);
>> +}
>
> TWo functions very similarly named. Perhaps the latter would be
> better named xfs_icache_free_eofblocks() to indicate it is an inode
> cache operation, rather than an inode operation.
>
Ok, so correct me if I misread your comment. xfs_inodes_free_eofblocks()
goes to xfs_icache_free_eofblocks() and xfs_inode_free_eofblocks()
remains as is.
> Then at some point in another patch set we can rename
> xfs_reclaim_inodes* to xfs_icache_reclaim_* and
> xfs_inode_ag_iterator* to xfs_icache_iterator* and so one so that
> there is a clear naming difference between operations on the inode
> cache and individual inodes...
>
Sounds logical.
Brian
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
