This can save us a dynamic memory allocation/free.
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h | 3 +++
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 36 +++++++++++++-----------------------
2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
index ed8ca7c..446ce73 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h
@@ -79,6 +79,9 @@ struct btrfs_inode {
*/
struct list_head delalloc_inodes;
+ /* for delayed iput */
+ struct list_head iput_list;
+
/*
* list for tracking inodes that must be sent to disk before a
* rename or truncate commit
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 95542a1..0c7161d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -2070,34 +2070,23 @@ zeroit:
return -EIO;
}
-struct delayed_iput {
- struct list_head list;
- struct inode *inode;
-};
-
-/* JDM: If this is fs-wide, why can't we add a pointer to
- * btrfs_inode instead and avoid the allocation? */
void btrfs_add_delayed_iput(struct inode *inode)
{
- struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = BTRFS_I(inode)->root->fs_info;
- struct delayed_iput *delayed;
-
- if (atomic_add_unless(&inode->i_count, -1, 1))
- return;
-
- delayed = kmalloc(sizeof(*delayed), GFP_NOFS | __GFP_NOFAIL);
- delayed->inode = inode;
+ if (atomic_add_unless(&inode->i_count, -1, 1) == 0) {
+ struct btrfs_inode *bi = BTRFS_I(inode);
+ struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = bi->root->fs_info;
- spin_lock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
- list_add_tail(&delayed->list, &fs_info->delayed_iputs);
- spin_unlock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
+ spin_lock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
+ list_add_tail(&bi->iput_list, &fs_info->delayed_iputs);
+ spin_unlock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
+ }
}
void btrfs_run_delayed_iputs(struct btrfs_root *root)
{
LIST_HEAD(list);
struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = root->fs_info;
- struct delayed_iput *delayed;
+ struct btrfs_inode *bi = NULL;
int empty;
spin_lock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
@@ -2111,10 +2100,9 @@ void btrfs_run_delayed_iputs(struct btrfs_root *root)
spin_unlock(&fs_info->delayed_iput_lock);
while (!list_empty(&list)) {
- delayed = list_entry(list.next, struct delayed_iput, list);
- list_del(&delayed->list);
- iput(delayed->inode);
- kfree(delayed);
+ bi = list_entry(list.next, struct btrfs_inode, iput_list);
+ list_del_init(&bi->iput_list);
+ iput(&bi->vfs_inode);
}
}
@@ -7097,6 +7085,7 @@ struct inode *btrfs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
mutex_init(&ei->delalloc_mutex);
btrfs_ordered_inode_tree_init(&ei->ordered_tree);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ei->delalloc_inodes);
+ INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ei->iput_list);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&ei->ordered_operations);
RB_CLEAR_NODE(&ei->rb_node);
@@ -7120,6 +7109,7 @@ void btrfs_destroy_inode(struct inode *inode)
WARN_ON(BTRFS_I(inode)->reserved_extents);
WARN_ON(BTRFS_I(inode)->delalloc_bytes);
WARN_ON(BTRFS_I(inode)->csum_bytes);
+ WARN_ON(!list_empty(&BTRFS_I(inode)->iput_list));
/*
* This can happen where we create an inode, but somebody else also
--
1.7.7.6
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html