[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZlnUorFO2Ptz5gcq@infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 06:46:10 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, djwong@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org,
brauner@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, chandanbabu@...nel.org,
jack@...e.cz, willy@...radead.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
chengzhihao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 8/8] xfs: improve truncate on a realtime inode
with huge extsize
> +/*
> + * Decide if this file is a realtime file whose data allocation unit is larger
> + * than default.
> + */
> +static inline bool xfs_inode_has_hugertalloc(struct xfs_inode *ip)
> +{
> + struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> +
> + return XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip) &&
> + mp->m_sb.sb_rextsize > XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, XFS_DFL_RTEXTSIZE);
> +}
The default rtextsize is actually a single FSB unless we're on a striped
volume in which case it is increased.
I'll take care of removing the unused and confusing XFS_DFL_RTEXTSIZE,
but for this patch we'd need to know the trade-off of when to just
convert to unwritten. For single-fsb rtextents we obviously don't need
any special action. But do you see a slowdown when converting to
unwritten for small > 1 rtextsizes? Because if not we could just
always use that code path, which would significantly simplify things
and remove yet another different to test code path.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists