On 02/22/2013 12:07 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 02/20/13 09:10, Brian Foster wrote:
>> The majority of xfs_iomap_prealloc_size() executes within the
>> check for lack of default I/O size. Reverse the logic to remove the
>> extra indentation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster<bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Reviewed-by: Ben Myers<bpm@xxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 63
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>> 1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>> index 912d83d..d914419 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>> @@ -381,42 +381,43 @@ xfs_iomap_prealloc_size(
>> int nimaps)
>> {
>> xfs_fsblock_t alloc_blocks = 0;
>> + int shift = 0;
>> + int64_t freesp;
>
> ...
>
>> + freesp = mp->m_sb.sb_fdblocks;
>
> ...
>
>> + /*
>> + * If we are still trying to allocate more space than is
>> + * available, squash the prealloc hard. This can happen if we
>> + * have a large file on a small filesystem and the above
>> + * lowspace thresholds are smaller than MAXEXTLEN.
>> + */
>> + while (alloc_blocks>= freesp)
>> + alloc_blocks>>= 4;
>
>
> Hi Brian, I am looking at your speculative preallocation quota
> throttling series.
>
> I know this code is from commit 4d559a3b. would this not be bad of
> freesp == 0?
>
Thanks. Hmm, I guess if freesp is 0 we'd hit an infinite loop
(irrespective of this patchset). We could change the comparison to >,
but I think the following would be more clear:
while (alloc_blocks && alloc_blocks >= freesp)
alloc_blocks >>= 4;
Thoughts? I'll send out a one-liner to bat around if that looks
reasonable. Good catch.
Brian
> --Mark.
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
