Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: delete invalid ac_b_extent backup inside
 ext4_mb_use_best_found()
To:     Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
Cc:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
        Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
References: <0c77de22-c0d0-4c1b-645a-865bcd2edc0a@gmail.com>
 <B72B3282-4D45-41BB-8A39-66618C1CE69A@dilger.ca>
From:   brookxu <brookxu.cn@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <099d2ffa-245d-c6d0-4515-db76d925a947@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 13 Aug 2020 17:08:55 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.10.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <B72B3282-4D45-41BB-8A39-66618C1CE69A@dilger.ca>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


Thank you very much for taking the time to review this patch. Due to poor thinking, there are some
problems with this patch. I think this patch can be ignored. Thank you again for your time.

thanks

Andreas Dilger wrote on 2020/8/13 16:44:
> On Aug 7, 2020, at 5:32 AM, brookxu <brookxu.cn@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Delete invalid ac_b_extent backup inside ext4_mb_use_best_found(),
>> we have done this operation in ext4_mb_new_group_pa() and
>> ext4_mb_new_inode_pa().
> 
> I'm not sure I understand this patch completely.
> 
> The calls to ext4_mb_new_group_pa() and ext4_mb_new_inode_pa() are
> done from ext4_mb_new_preallocation(), which is called at the *end*
> of ext4_mb_use_best_found() (i.e. after the lines that are being
> deleted).
> 
> Maybe I'm confused by the description "we *have done* this operation"
> makes it seem like it was already done, but really it should be
> "we *will do* this operation in ..."?
> 
> That said, it would make more sense to keep the one line here in
> ext4_mb_use_best_found() and remove the two duplicate lines in
> ext4_mb_new_group_pa() and ext4_mb_new_inode_pa()?  In that case,
> the patch description would be more correct, like:
> 
>     Delete duplicate ac_b_extent backup in ext4_mb_new_group_pa()
>     and ext4_mb_new_inode_pa(), since we have done this operation
>     in ext4_mb_use_best_found() already.
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> 
> PS: thank you for taking the time to look at this code and improve it.
> I know it is complex and hard to understand, but going through it like
> this and trimming off the bad bits makes it a bit easier to understand
> and maintain with each small patch.
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Chunguang Xu <brookxu@tencent.com>
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> index 9b1c3ad..fb63e9f 100644
>> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>> @@ -1704,10 +1704,6 @@ static void ext4_mb_use_best_found(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>> 	ac->ac_b_ex.fe_logical = ac->ac_g_ex.fe_logical;
>> 	ret = mb_mark_used(e4b, &ac->ac_b_ex);
>>
>> -	/* preallocation can change ac_b_ex, thus we store actually
>> -	 * allocated blocks for history */
>> -	ac->ac_f_ex = ac->ac_b_ex;
>> -
>> 	ac->ac_status = AC_STATUS_FOUND;
>> 	ac->ac_tail = ret & 0xffff;
>> 	ac->ac_buddy = ret >> 16;
>> @@ -1726,8 +1722,8 @@ static void ext4_mb_use_best_found(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>> 	/* store last allocated for subsequent stream allocation */
>> 	if (ac->ac_flags & EXT4_MB_STREAM_ALLOC) {
>> 		spin_lock(&sbi->s_md_lock);
>> -		sbi->s_mb_last_group = ac->ac_f_ex.fe_group;
>> -		sbi->s_mb_last_start = ac->ac_f_ex.fe_start;
>> +		sbi->s_mb_last_group = ac->ac_b_ex.fe_group;
>> +		sbi->s_mb_last_start = ac->ac_b_ex.fe_start;
>> 		spin_unlock(&sbi->s_md_lock);
>> 	}
>> 	/*
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
> 
> 
> Cheers, Andreas
> 
> 
> 
> 
>