On Sun, Apr 20, 2025 at 12:13:34PM -0700, Guenter Roeck wrote:
> On 4/20/25 11:07, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> ...
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_zone_gc.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_zone_gc.c
> >> index 8c541ca71872..6dde2a680e75 100644
> >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_zone_gc.c
> >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_zone_gc.c
> >> @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ bool
> >> xfs_zoned_need_gc(
> >> struct xfs_mount *mp)
> >> {
> >> - s64 available, free;
> >> + u64 available, free, rem;
> >>
> >> if (!xfs_group_marked(mp, XG_TYPE_RTG, XFS_RTG_RECLAIMABLE))
> >> return false;
> >> @@ -183,7 +183,12 @@ xfs_zoned_need_gc(
> >> return true;
> >>
> >> free = xfs_estimate_freecounter(mp, XC_FREE_RTEXTENTS);
> >> - if (available < mult_frac(free, mp->m_zonegc_low_space, 100))
> >> +
> >> + rem = do_div(free, 100);
> >> + free = free * mp->m_zonegc_low_space +
> >> + div_u64(rem * mp->m_zonegc_low_space, 100);
> >> +
> >> + if (available < free)
> >> return true;
> >
> > You're essentially open coding mult_frac(), if we can get mult_frac() to work
> > on 64-bit too (or add a 64-bit version), that seems a better generic solution.
> >
>
> Yes, I know. Problem is that getting more than one maintainer involved tends to make
> it exponentially more difficult to get anything accepted. With that in mind, I prefer
> open coded solutions like the one I suggested above. A generic solution is then still
> possible, but it is disconnected from solving the immediate problem.
>
I think this is fair for the moment, unless Hans/Christoph have a better idea?!
> Guenter
>
