[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20171206012901.GZ4094@dastard>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 12:36:48 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Rehas Sachdeva <aquannie@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-nilfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 72/73] xfs: Convert mru cache to XArray
On Tue, Dec 05, 2017 at 04:41:58PM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> From: Matthew Wilcox <mawilcox@...rosoft.com>
>
> This eliminates a call to radix_tree_preload().
.....
> void
> @@ -431,24 +424,24 @@ xfs_mru_cache_insert(
> unsigned long key,
> struct xfs_mru_cache_elem *elem)
> {
> + XA_STATE(xas, &mru->store, key);
> int error;
>
> ASSERT(mru && mru->lists);
> if (!mru || !mru->lists)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> - if (radix_tree_preload(GFP_NOFS))
> - return -ENOMEM;
> -
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&elem->list_node);
> elem->key = key;
>
> - spin_lock(&mru->lock);
> - error = radix_tree_insert(&mru->store, key, elem);
> - radix_tree_preload_end();
> - if (!error)
> - _xfs_mru_cache_list_insert(mru, elem);
> - spin_unlock(&mru->lock);
> + do {
> + xas_lock(&xas);
> + xas_store(&xas, elem);
> + error = xas_error(&xas);
> + if (!error)
> + _xfs_mru_cache_list_insert(mru, elem);
> + xas_unlock(&xas);
> + } while (xas_nomem(&xas, GFP_NOFS));
Ok, so why does this have a retry loop on ENOMEM despite the
existing code handling that error? And why put such a loop in this
code and not any of the other XFS code that used
radix_tree_preload() and is arguably much more important to avoid
ENOMEM on insert (e.g. the inode cache)?
Also, I really don't like the pattern of using xa_lock()/xa_unlock()
to protect access to an external structure. i.e. the mru->lock
context is protecting multiple fields and operations in the MRU
structure, not just the radix tree operations. Turning that around
so that a larger XFS structure and algorithm is now protected by an
opaque internal lock from generic storage structure the forms part
of the larger structure seems like a bad design pattern to me...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
Powered by blists - more mailing lists