On Mon, Jan 06, 2020 at 02:29:01PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 1/6/20 12:22 PM, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 30, 2019 at 04:31:15PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> >> @@ -60,6 +60,11 @@ struct btrfs_inode {
> >> */
> >> struct extent_io_tree io_failure_tree;
> >>
> >> + /* keeps track of where we have extent items mapped in order to make
> >> + * sure our i_size adjustments are accurate.
> >> + */
> >> + struct extent_io_tree file_extent_tree;
> >
> > This is not exactly lightweight and cut to the minimum needed, the size
> > is 40 bytes and contains struct members that are unused. At least the
> > file extents tree seems to be in use unlike that io_failure_tree wasting
> > the bytes almost 100% of time.
> >
>
> I'm not in love with it either, but I don't want to invent some lighter weight
> range thingy that I'm going to end up messing up in other ways.
Yeah, the extent_io_tree is now being used for generic range tree, some
cleanups could remove the members that were added for the first specific
use (like the dirty_bytes, or track_updates). For correctness of NOHOLES
the inode size increase shouldn't be a blocker but needs to be addressed
later.
> Don't take this series yet, there's still something fishy going on that I have
> to figure out. Thanks,
Ok.
