All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Jan Schmidt <list.btrfs@jan-o-sch.net>
Cc: Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: save us a mutex_lock usage when doing quota rescan
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 15:56:45 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5188B3BD.8090807@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5188A772.2090007@jan-o-sch.net>

Hello Jan,

> On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 08:15 (+0200), Wang Shilong wrote:
>> If qgroup_rescan worker is in progress, we should ignore
>> the extent that has not been dealt with qgroup_rescan worker,just
>> let them dealt later otherwise we may get wrong qgroup accounting.
>>
>> However, we have checked this before find_all_roots() without spin_lock.
>> When doing qgroup accounting, we don't have to check it again, because
>> during this period,qgroup_rescan worker can deal with more extents and
>> qgroup_rescan_extent->objectid can only go larger, so here the check
>> is unnecessary.
>>
>> Just remove this check, so that we don't need hold qgroup_rescan_lock
>> when doing qgroup accounting.
> 
> NAK.
> 
> After a discussion on that lock the last thing in this thread I see is ...
> 
> On Wed, May 01, 2013 at 13:57 (+0200), Jan Schmidt wrote:
>> Now I see what you mean. The second check is only required when we start
>> a rescan operation after the initial check in btrfs_qgroup_account_ref.
> 
> Please continue on that argument, your commit message doesn't explain at all why
> we should be safe to remove this check.


You are right! 

Thanks,
Wang

> 
> -Jan
> 
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/btrfs/qgroup.c |    9 ---------
>>  1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>> index d059d86..2710784 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
>> @@ -1445,15 +1445,7 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_account_ref(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>  	if (ret < 0)
>>  		return ret;
>>  
>> -	mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
>>  	spin_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock);
>> -	if (fs_info->qgroup_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN) {
>> -		if (fs_info->qgroup_rescan_progress.objectid <= node->bytenr) {
>> -			ret = 0;
>> -			goto unlock;
>> -		}
>> -	}
>> -
>>  	quota_root = fs_info->quota_root;
>>  	if (!quota_root)
>>  		goto unlock;
>> @@ -1492,7 +1484,6 @@ int btrfs_qgroup_account_ref(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>  
>>  unlock:
>>  	spin_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock);
>> -	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_rescan_lock);
>>  	ulist_free(roots);
>>  
>>  	return ret;
>>
> 
> 




      reply	other threads:[~2013-05-07  8:16 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-07  6:15 [PATCH] Btrfs: save us a mutex_lock usage when doing quota rescan Wang Shilong
2013-05-07  7:04 ` Jan Schmidt
2013-05-07  7:56   ` Wang Shilong [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=5188B3BD.8090807@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --to=wangsl-fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=list.btrfs@jan-o-sch.net \
    /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.