Thinking about use case a bit, most lfsr_fs_gc will be to perform
background work, and can benefit from being incremental.
We already support incremental gc and all the mess associated with
traversal invalidation via the traversal API, so we might as well expose
this through lfsr_fs_gc.
The main downside is that we need to store an lfsr_traversal_t object
somewhere, which is not exactly a cheap struct. I was originally
considering limiting incremental gc to the traversal API for this
reason, but I think the value add of an incremental lfsr_fs_gc is too
compelling... Though we really should add a compile-time option
(LFS_NO_GC? LFS_NO_INCRGC?) to allow users to opt-out of this RAM cost
if they're never going to call this function.
Oh, and lfs_t also becomes self-referential, which might become a
problem for higher-level language users...
---
The incremental behavior of lfsr_fs_gc can be controlled by the new
gc_steps config option. This allows more than one step to be performed
at a time, which may allow for more progress when intermixed with
write-heavy filesystem operations. Setting gc_steps=-1 performs a full
traversal every call, which guarantees always making some amount of
progress.
This adds a bit of code, since we now need to check for/resume existing
traversals. But the real cost is the added RAM to lfs_t, which is
unfortunately wasted if you never call lfsr_fs_gc:
code stack lfs_t
before: 35708 2672 164
after: 35756 (+0.1%) 2672 (+0.0%) 296 (+80.5%)
Christopher Haster
fc486ca4f7