I had previously decided that tagging a single multiorder entry would
count as tagging 2^order entries for the purposes of 'nr_to_tag'. I now
believe that decision to be a mistake, and it should count as a single
entry. That's more likely to be what callers expect.
When walking back up the tree from a newly-tagged entry, the current
code assumed we were starting from the lowest level of the tree; if we
have a multiorder entry with an order at least RADIX_TREE_MAP_SHIFT in
size then we need to shift the index by 'shift' before we start walking
back up the tree, or we will end up not setting tags on higher entries,
and then mistakenly thinking that entries below a certain point in the
tree are not tagged.
If the first index we examine is a sibling entry of a tagged multiorder
entry, we were not tagging it. We need to examine the canonical entry,
and the easiest way to do that is to use radix_tree_descend(). We then
have to skip over sibling slots when looking for the next entry in the
tree or we will end up walking back to the canonical entry.
Add several tests for radix_tree_range_tag_if_tagged().
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
If the radix tree user attempted to insert a colliding entry with an
existing multiorder entry, then radix_tree_create() could encounter a
sibling entry when walking down the tree to look for a slot. Use
radix_tree_descend() to fix the problem, and add a test-case to make
sure the problem doesn't come back in future.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
This enables the macros radix_tree_for_each_slot() and friends to be
used with multi-order entries.
The way that this works is that we treat all entries in a given slots[]
array as a single chunk. If the index given to radix_tree_next_chunk()
happens to point us to a sibling entry, we will back up iter->index so
that it points to the canonical entry, and that will be the place where
we start our iteration.
As we're processing a chunk in radix_tree_next_slot(), we process
canonical entries, skip over sibling entries, and restart the chunk
lookup if we find a non-sibling indirect pointer. This drops back to
the radix_tree_next_chunk() code, which will re-walk the tree and look
for another chunk.
This allows us to properly handle multi-order entries mixed with other
entries that are at various heights in the radix tree.
Signed-off-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
These BUG_ON tests are to ensure that all the tags are clear when
inserting a new entry. If we insert a multiorder entry, we'll end up
looking at the tags for a different node, and so the BUG_ON can end up
triggering spuriously.
Also, we now have three tags, not two, so check all three are clear, and
check all the root tags with a single call to BUG_ON since the bits are
stored contiguously.
Include a test-case to ensure this problem does not reoccur.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Setting the indirect bit on the user data entry used to be unambiguous
because the tree walking code knew not to expect internal nodes in the
last level of the tree. Multiorder entries can appear at any level of
the tree, and a leaf with the indirect bit set is indistinguishable from
a pointer to a node.
Introduce a special entry (RADIX_TREE_RETRY) which is neither a valid
user entry, nor a valid pointer to a node. The radix_tree_deref_retry()
function continues to work the same way, but tree walking code can
distinguish it from a pointer to a node.
Also fix the condition for setting slot->parent to NULL; it does not
matter what height the tree is, it only matters whether slot is an
indirect pointer. Move this code above the comment which is referring
to the assignment to root->rnode.
Also fix the condition for preventing the tree from shrinking to a
single entry if it's a multiorder entry.
Add a test-case to the test suite that checks that the tree goes back
down to its original height after an item is inserted & deleted from a
higher index in the tree.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
The current code will insert entries at each level, as if we're going to
add a new entry at the bottom level, so we then get an -EEXIST when we
try to insert the entry into the tree. The best way to fix this is to
not check 'order' when inserting into an empty tree.
We still need to 'extend' the tree to the height necessary for the maximum
index corresponding to this entry, so pass that value to
radix_tree_extend() rather than the index we're asked to create, or we
won't create a tree that's deep enough.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
I've been receiving increasingly concerned notes from 0day about how
much my recent changes have been bloating the radix tree. Make it
happier by only including multiorder support if
CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGES is set.
This is an independent Kconfig option, so other radix tree users can
also set it if they have a need.
Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Reviewed-by: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@gmail.com>
Cc: Kirill Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
Cc: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Matthew Wilcox
Ross Zwisler