From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH 13/17] btrfs: introduce BTRFS_NESTING_SPLIT for split blocks
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2020 11:42:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200810154242.782802-14-josef@toxicpanda.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200810154242.782802-1-josef@toxicpanda.com>
If we are splitting a leaf/node, we could do something like the
following
lock(leaf) BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL
lock(left) BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT + BTRFS_NESTING_COW
push from leaf -> left
reset path to point to left
split left
allocate new block, lock block BTRFS_NESTING_SPLIT
at the new block point we need to have a different nesting level,
because we have already used either BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT or
BTRFS_NESTING_RIGHT when pushing items from the original leaf into the
adjacent leaves.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 4 ++--
fs/btrfs/locking.h | 9 +++++++++
2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
index 6b63b3bcacd4..82dac6510a86 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
@@ -3473,7 +3473,7 @@ static noinline int split_node(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
btrfs_node_key(c, &disk_key, mid);
split = alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush(trans, root, 0, &disk_key, level,
- c->start, 0, BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL);
+ c->start, 0, BTRFS_NESTING_SPLIT);
if (IS_ERR(split))
return PTR_ERR(split);
@@ -4250,7 +4250,7 @@ static noinline int split_leaf(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
btrfs_item_key(l, &disk_key, mid);
right = alloc_tree_block_no_bg_flush(trans, root, 0, &disk_key, 0,
- l->start, 0, BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL);
+ l->start, 0, BTRFS_NESTING_SPLIT);
if (IS_ERR(right))
return PTR_ERR(right);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/locking.h b/fs/btrfs/locking.h
index 31a87477b889..4f5586fed25a 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/locking.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/locking.h
@@ -46,6 +46,15 @@ enum btrfs_lock_nesting {
*/
BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT_COW,
BTRFS_NESTING_RIGHT_COW,
+
+ /*
+ * When splitting we may push nodes to the left or right, but still use
+ * the subsequent nodes in our path, keeping our locks on those adjacent
+ * blocks. Thus when we go to allocate a new split block we've already
+ * used up all of our available subclasses, so this subclass exists to
+ * handle this case where we need to allocate a new split block.
+ */
+ BTRFS_NESTING_SPLIT,
};
struct btrfs_path;
--
2.24.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-08-10 15:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-08-10 15:42 [PATCH 00/17] Convert to an rwsem for our tree locking Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 01/17] btrfs: drop path before adding new uuid tree entry Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 16:28 ` Filipe Manana
2020-08-10 16:30 ` Filipe Manana
2020-08-11 14:35 ` Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 02/17] btrfs: fix potential deadlock in the search ioctl Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 16:45 ` Filipe Manana
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 03/17] btrfs: do not hold device_list_mutex when closing devices Josef Bacik
2020-08-11 10:53 ` Filipe Manana
2020-08-14 14:11 ` David Sterba
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 04/17] btrfs: allocate scrub workqueues outside of locks Josef Bacik
2020-08-11 11:22 ` Filipe Manana
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 05/17] btrfs: set the correct lockdep class for new nodes Josef Bacik
2020-08-11 11:25 ` Filipe Manana
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 06/17] btrfs: set the lockdep class for log tree extent buffers Josef Bacik
2020-08-11 11:28 ` Filipe Manana
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 07/17] btrfs: rename eb->lock_nested to eb->lock_recursed Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 08/17] btrfs: introduce path->recurse Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 09/17] btrfs: add nesting tags to the locking helpers Josef Bacik
2020-08-14 14:41 ` David Sterba
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 10/17] btrfs: introduce BTRFS_NESTING_COW for cow'ing blocks Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 11/17] btrfs: introduce BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT/BTRFS_NESTING_RIGHT Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 12/17] btrfs: introduce BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT/RIGHT_COW Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 14/17] btrfs: introduce BTRFS_NESTING_NEW_ROOT for adding new roots Josef Bacik
2020-08-14 14:45 ` David Sterba
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 15/17] btrfs: change our extent buffer lock to a rw_semaphore Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 16/17] btrfs: remove all of the blocking helpers Josef Bacik
2020-08-10 15:42 ` [PATCH 17/17] btrfs: rip out path->leave_spinning Josef Bacik
2020-08-13 14:26 ` [PATCH 00/17] Convert to an rwsem for our tree locking David Sterba
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=20200810154242.782802-14-josef@toxicpanda.com \
--to=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox