On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 12:11:07PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> Add the findfirst_free_inode_rec() and next_free_ino_rec() helpers
> to assist scanning the in-core inode records for records with at
> least one free inode. These will be used to determine what records
> are included in the free inode btree.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> repair/incore.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/repair/incore.h b/repair/incore.h
> index 5419884..5f8c188 100644
> --- a/repair/incore.h
> +++ b/repair/incore.h
> @@ -381,6 +381,33 @@ void clear_uncertain_ino_cache(xfs_agnumber_t agno);
> ((ino_tree_node_t *) ((ino_node_ptr)->avl_node.avl_forw))
>
> /*
> + * finobt helpers
> + */
> +static inline ino_tree_node_t *
> +findfirst_free_inode_rec(xfs_agnumber_t agno)
> +{
> + ino_tree_node_t *ino_rec;
> +
> + ino_rec = findfirst_inode_rec(agno);
> +
> + while (ino_rec && !ino_rec->ir_free)
> + ino_rec = next_ino_rec(ino_rec);
> +
> + return ino_rec;
> +}
> +
> +static inline ino_tree_node_t *
> +next_free_ino_rec(ino_tree_node_t *ino_rec)
> +{
> + ino_rec = next_ino_rec(ino_rec);
> +
> + while (ino_rec && !ino_rec->ir_free)
> + ino_rec = next_ino_rec(ino_rec);
> +
> + return ino_rec;
> +}
That looks a bit inefficient - walking the list of inode records to
find the next one with free inodes. Perhaps we woul dbe better
served by adding a new list for inode records with free entries and
walking that instead?
Iknow, it's a memory vs speed tradeoff, but if we've got millions of
inodes and very few free, the difference could be very significant.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
