Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] f2fs: introduce get_available_block_count() for cleanup

From: Chao Yu
Date: Mon Sep 02 2019 - 19:30:04 EST


On 2019-9-3 6:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 08/31, Chao Yu wrote:
>> There are very similar codes in inc_valid_block_count() and
>> inc_valid_node_count() which is used for available user block
>> count calculation.
>>
>> This patch introduces a new helper get_available_block_count()
>> to include those common codes, and used it instead for cleanup.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - fix panic during recovery
>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>> 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> index a89ad8cab821..9c010e6cba5c 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> @@ -1756,6 +1756,27 @@ static inline bool __allow_reserved_blocks(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> +static inline unsigned int get_available_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> + struct inode *inode, bool cap)
>> +{
>> + block_t avail_user_block_count;
>> +
>> + avail_user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count -
>> + sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
>> +
>> + if (!__allow_reserved_blocks(sbi, inode, cap))
>> + avail_user_block_count -= F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks;
>> +
>> + if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED))) {
>> + if (avail_user_block_count > sbi->unusable_block_count)
>> + avail_user_block_count -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>> + else
>> + avail_user_block_count = 0;
>> + }
>> +
>> + return avail_user_block_count;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void f2fs_i_blocks_write(struct inode *, block_t, bool, bool);
>> static inline int inc_valid_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> struct inode *inode, blkcnt_t *count)
>> @@ -1782,17 +1803,8 @@ static inline int inc_valid_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>
>> spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> sbi->total_valid_block_count += (block_t)(*count);
>> - avail_user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count -
>> - sbi->current_reserved_blocks;
>> + avail_user_block_count = get_available_block_count(sbi, inode, true);
>>
>> - if (!__allow_reserved_blocks(sbi, inode, true))
>> - avail_user_block_count -= F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks;
>> - if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED))) {
>> - if (avail_user_block_count > sbi->unusable_block_count)
>> - avail_user_block_count -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>> - else
>> - avail_user_block_count = 0;
>> - }
>> if (unlikely(sbi->total_valid_block_count > avail_user_block_count)) {
>> diff = sbi->total_valid_block_count - avail_user_block_count;
>> if (diff > *count)
>> @@ -2005,7 +2017,8 @@ static inline int inc_valid_node_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> struct inode *inode, bool is_inode)
>> {
>> block_t valid_block_count;
>> - unsigned int valid_node_count, user_block_count;
>> + unsigned int valid_node_count;
>> + unsigned int avail_user_block_count;
>> int err;
>>
>> if (is_inode) {
>> @@ -2027,16 +2040,10 @@ static inline int inc_valid_node_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>
>> spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>>
>> - valid_block_count = sbi->total_valid_block_count +
>> - sbi->current_reserved_blocks + 1;
>> -
>> - if (!__allow_reserved_blocks(sbi, inode, false))
>> - valid_block_count += F2FS_OPTION(sbi).root_reserved_blocks;
>> - user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count;
>> - if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED)))
>> - user_block_count -= sbi->unusable_block_count;
>> + valid_block_count = sbi->total_valid_block_count + 1;
>> + avail_user_block_count = get_available_block_count(sbi, inode, false);
>
> This doesn't look like same?

Actually, calculations of block count in inc_valid_node_count() and
inc_valid_block_count() should be the same, I've no idea why we use different
policy for reserved block for root user.

Thanks,

>
>>
>> - if (unlikely(valid_block_count > user_block_count)) {
>> + if (unlikely(valid_block_count > avail_user_block_count)) {
>> spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> goto enospc;
>> }
>> --
>> 2.18.0.rc1