[PATCH v4 1/6] xfs: reorganize xfs_iomap_prealloc_size to remove indentation

[Mark Tinguely]

On 02/22/13 12:08, Brian Foster wrote:
> On 02/22/2013 12:07 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> On 02/20/13 09:10, Brian Foster wrote:
>>> The majority of xfs_iomap_prealloc_size() executes within the
>>> check for lack of default I/O size. Reverse the logic to remove the
>>> extra indentation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster<bfoster at redhat.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner at redhat.com>
>>> Reviewed-by: Ben Myers<bpm at sgi.com>
>>> ---
>>>    fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c |   63
>>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
>>>    1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>>> index 912d83d..d914419 100644
>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
>>> @@ -381,42 +381,43 @@ xfs_iomap_prealloc_size(
>>>        int            nimaps)
>>>    {
>>>        xfs_fsblock_t        alloc_blocks = 0;
>>> +    int            shift = 0;
>>> +    int64_t            freesp;
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> +    freesp = mp->m_sb.sb_fdblocks;
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * If we are still trying to allocate more space than is
>>> +     * available, squash the prealloc hard. This can happen if we
>>> +     * have a large file on a small filesystem and the above
>>> +     * lowspace thresholds are smaller than MAXEXTLEN.
>>> +     */
>>> +    while (alloc_blocks>= freesp)
>>> +        alloc_blocks>>= 4;
>>
>>
>> Hi Brian, I am looking at your speculative preallocation quota
>> throttling series.
>>
>> I know this code is from commit 4d559a3b. would this not be bad of
>> freesp == 0?
>>
>
> Thanks. Hmm, I guess if freesp is 0 we'd hit an infinite loop
> (irrespective of this patchset). We could change the comparison to>,
> but I think the following would be more clear:
>
> 	while (alloc_blocks&&  alloc_blocks>= freesp)
> 		alloc_blocks>>= 4;
>
> Thoughts? I'll send out a one-liner to bat around if that looks
> reasonable. Good catch.
>
> Brian
>
>> --Mark.


That looks reasonable to me.

Thanks,

--Mark.