Btrfs: more efficient inode tree replace operation
Instead of removing the current inode from the red black tree
and then add the new one, just use the red black tree replace
operation, which is more efficient.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
Reviewed-by: Zach Brown <zab@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index 6091ba9..abed81d 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -4688,11 +4688,11 @@
struct btrfs_inode *entry;
struct rb_node **p;
struct rb_node *parent;
+ struct rb_node *new = &BTRFS_I(inode)->rb_node;
u64 ino = btrfs_ino(inode);
if (inode_unhashed(inode))
return;
-again:
parent = NULL;
spin_lock(&root->inode_lock);
p = &root->inode_tree.rb_node;
@@ -4707,14 +4707,14 @@
else {
WARN_ON(!(entry->vfs_inode.i_state &
(I_WILL_FREE | I_FREEING)));
- rb_erase(parent, &root->inode_tree);
+ rb_replace_node(parent, new, &root->inode_tree);
RB_CLEAR_NODE(parent);
spin_unlock(&root->inode_lock);
- goto again;
+ return;
}
}
- rb_link_node(&BTRFS_I(inode)->rb_node, parent, p);
- rb_insert_color(&BTRFS_I(inode)->rb_node, &root->inode_tree);
+ rb_link_node(new, parent, p);
+ rb_insert_color(new, &root->inode_tree);
spin_unlock(&root->inode_lock);
}