From: Theodore Ts'o Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 05:32:39 +0000 (-0500) Subject: tune2fs: Fix inefficient O(n**2) algorithms when expanding the inode size X-Git-Tag: v1.41.4~44 X-Git-Url: https://git.whamcloud.com/gitweb?a=commitdiff_plain;h=27c6de45a4187a348ec0960472d4a113ee6ea425;p=tools%2Fe2fsprogs.git tune2fs: Fix inefficient O(n**2) algorithms when expanding the inode size When running "tune2fs -I 256" on moderate to large filesystems, the time required to run tune2fs can take many hours (20+ before some users gave up in disgust). This was due to some O(n**2) and O(n*m) algorithms in move_block() and inode_scan_and_fix(), respectively. Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" --- diff --git a/misc/tune2fs.c b/misc/tune2fs.c index b29b344..e72518a 100644 --- a/misc/tune2fs.c +++ b/misc/tune2fs.c @@ -1011,13 +1011,13 @@ static int move_block(ext2_filsys fs, ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap) if (retval) return retval; - for (blk = fs->super->s_first_data_block; - blk < fs->super->s_blocks_count; blk++) { + for (new_blk = blk = fs->super->s_first_data_block; + blk < fs->super->s_blocks_count; blk++) { if (!ext2fs_test_block_bitmap(bmap, blk)) continue; - retval = ext2fs_new_block(fs, blk, NULL, &new_blk); + retval = ext2fs_new_block(fs, new_blk, NULL, &new_blk); if (retval) goto err_out; @@ -1068,12 +1068,14 @@ static int process_block(ext2_filsys fs EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)), e2_blkcnt_t blockcnt EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)), blk_t ref_block EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)), int ref_offset EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)), - void *priv_data EXT2FS_ATTR((unused))) + void *priv_data) { int ret = 0; blk_t new_blk; + ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap = (ext2fs_block_bitmap) priv_data; - + if (!ext2fs_test_block_bitmap(bmap, *block_nr)) + return 0; new_blk = transalate_block(*block_nr); if (new_blk) { *block_nr = new_blk; @@ -1086,7 +1088,7 @@ static int process_block(ext2_filsys fs EXT2FS_ATTR((unused)), return ret; } -static int inode_scan_and_fix(ext2_filsys fs) +static int inode_scan_and_fix(ext2_filsys fs, ext2fs_block_bitmap bmap) { errcode_t retval = 0; ext2_ino_t ino; @@ -1122,8 +1124,8 @@ static int inode_scan_and_fix(ext2_filsys fs) * Do we need to fix this ?? */ - if (inode.i_file_acl) { - + if (inode.i_file_acl && + ext2fs_test_block_bitmap(bmap, inode.i_file_acl)) { blk = transalate_block(inode.i_file_acl); if (!blk) continue; @@ -1142,9 +1144,8 @@ static int inode_scan_and_fix(ext2_filsys fs) if (!ext2fs_inode_has_valid_blocks(&inode)) continue; - retval = ext2fs_block_iterate2(fs, ino, 0, - block_buf, process_block, - 0); + retval = ext2fs_block_iterate2(fs, ino, 0, block_buf, + process_block, bmap); if (retval) goto err_out; @@ -1344,7 +1345,7 @@ static int resize_inode(ext2_filsys fs, unsigned long new_size) if (retval) goto err_out; - retval = inode_scan_and_fix(fs); + retval = inode_scan_and_fix(fs, bmap); if (retval) goto err_out;