From: liubo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc V2
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2011 09:19:39 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DA4FA2B.7060704@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1302612902-14113-1-git-send-email-josef@redhat.com>
On 04/12/2011 08:55 PM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> Everytime we try to allocate disk space we try and see if we can pre-emptively
> allocate a chunk, but in the common case we don't allocate anything, so there is
> no sense in taking the chunk_mutex at all. So instead if we are allocating a
> chunk, mark it in the space_info so we don't get two people trying to allocate
> at the same time. Thanks,
>
Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
> ---
> V1->V2: Return in the case where we don't need to allocate a chunk instead of
> going to out.
>
> fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 5 +++--
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-----
> 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> index 0d00a07..a566780 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> @@ -740,10 +740,11 @@ struct btrfs_space_info {
> */
> unsigned long reservation_progress;
>
> - int full; /* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
> + int full:1; /* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
> chunks for this space */
> - int force_alloc; /* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
> + int force_alloc:1; /* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
> this space */
> + int chunk_alloc:1; /* set if we are allocating a chunk */
>
> struct list_head list;
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index f619c3c..362cc9b 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -3020,6 +3020,7 @@ static int update_space_info(struct btrfs_fs_info *info, u64 flags,
> found->bytes_may_use = 0;
> found->full = 0;
> found->force_alloc = 0;
> + found->chunk_alloc = 0;
> *space_info = found;
> list_add_rcu(&found->list, &info->space_info);
> atomic_set(&found->caching_threads, 0);
> @@ -3273,10 +3274,9 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> {
> struct btrfs_space_info *space_info;
> struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = extent_root->fs_info;
> + int wait_for_alloc = 0;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> -
> flags = btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile(extent_root, flags);
>
> space_info = __find_space_info(extent_root->fs_info, flags);
> @@ -3287,21 +3287,40 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> }
> BUG_ON(!space_info);
>
> +again:
> spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
> if (space_info->force_alloc)
> force = 1;
> if (space_info->full) {
> spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> - goto out;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> if (!force && !should_alloc_chunk(extent_root, space_info,
> alloc_bytes)) {
> spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> - goto out;
> + return 0;
> + } else if (space_info->chunk_alloc) {
> + wait_for_alloc = 1;
> + } else {
> + space_info->chunk_alloc = 1;
> }
> spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
>
> + mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> +
> + /*
> + * The chunk_mutex is held throughout the entirety of a chunk
> + * allocation, so once we've acquired the chunk_mutex we know that the
> + * other guy is done and we need to recheck and see if we should
> + * allocate.
> + */
> + if (wait_for_alloc) {
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> + wait_for_alloc = 0;
> + goto again;
> + }
> +
> /*
> * If we have mixed data/metadata chunks we want to make sure we keep
> * allocating mixed chunks instead of individual chunks.
> @@ -3327,9 +3346,9 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> space_info->full = 1;
> else
> ret = 1;
> + space_info->chunk_alloc = 0;
> space_info->force_alloc = 0;
> spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> -out:
> mutex_unlock(&extent_root->fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> return ret;
> }
prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-04-13 1:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-04-12 12:55 [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc V2 Josef Bacik
2011-04-13 1:19 ` liubo [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DA4FA2B.7060704@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=josef@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.