After thinking about this for a bit, there are some compelling
motivations for including an incremental LFS_T_MKCONSISTENT:
- Being able to run incremental LFS_T_MKCONSISTENT traversals in
parallel with read-only operations is actually quite enticing.
The only complicated part is maintaining the invalidatable traversal
state, which already exists with lfsr_traversal_t (except the
annoying LFS_F_MUTATED bit).
- While it's not really effective to combine LFS_T_MKCONSISTENT and
LFS_T_LOOKAHEAD traversals, it _is_ possible to combine
LFS_T_MKCONSISTENT with LFS_T_COMPACT, LFS_T_CKMETA,
LFS_T_REPAIRMETA (future), etc.
Really, LFS_T_LOOKAHEAD is the odd one out.
- Making LFS_T_MKCONSISTENT incremental means all filesystem-level
traversals (except lfsr_mount) can be run incrementally. Which is a
nice feature to have when O(n = entire fs) risks being very long
running.
The main downside of LFS_T_MKCONSISTENT (and LFS_T_COMPACT, etc) is that
attempting to run it immediately after mount will likely recursively
trigger a lookahead scan to satisfy block allocation requests -- which
will block the current thread for the duration of the lookahead scan.
But this seems to be more a problem of LFS_T_LOOKAHEAD interacting with
other traversals poorly.
Fortunately, long term, the current plan is to replace the lookahead
buffer with an on-disk block map on disks where the lookahead scan is a
bottleneck. If this gets implemented the problem goes away.
So re-reverting this for now. Worst case we can always re-re-revert this
again in the future. There is already a working implementation, so might
as well see where it goes...
Supporting incremental LFS_T_MKCONSISTENT does add a bit of a code
cost, but there is still some room for deduplicating lfsr_mtree_gc +
lfsr_fs_mkconsistent, which may be interesting:
code stack
before: 35232 2680
after: 35480 (+0.7%) 2680 (+0.0%)
Christopher Haster
0e2a909148