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;
>>
>
>
prev parent 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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox