public inbox for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@gmail.com>
To: dsterba@suse.cz, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
	Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
	Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: add lockdep_assert_held to need_preemptive_reclaim
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 01:25:57 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5eb61b82-6ed2-9386-b288-f57369de5adb@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220302193042.GV12643@twin.jikos.cz>

On 02/03/2022 20:30, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 11:52:16PM +0100, Niels Dossche wrote:
>> In a previous patch I extended the locking for member accesses of
>> space_info.
> 
> A reference to another patch would be by a subject or a specific commit
> id (not applicable in this case) or you can write it without any
> reference if the change is standalone. The changelog should describe the
> reason for the change, user visible effects, what can go wrong etc.
> 

I will make sure to do that in the future. Thanks.

>> It was then suggested to also add a lockdep assertion for
>> space_info->lock to need_preemptive_reclaim.
>>
>> Suggested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Niels Dossche <dossche.niels@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/btrfs/space-info.c | 6 +++++-
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/space-info.c b/fs/btrfs/space-info.c
>> index 294242c194d8..5464bd168d5b 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/space-info.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/space-info.c
>> @@ -734,9 +734,13 @@ static bool need_preemptive_reclaim(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>  {
>>  	u64 global_rsv_size = fs_info->global_block_rsv.reserved;
>>  	u64 ordered, delalloc;
>> -	u64 thresh = div_factor_fine(space_info->total_bytes, 90);
>> +	u64 thresh;
>>  	u64 used;
>>  
>> +	lockdep_assert_held(&space_info->lock);
>> +
>> +	thresh = div_factor_fine(space_info->total_bytes, 90);
> 
> I'm not sure this is necessary, as this is not locking where the
> initialization would have to be inside. The lockdep assertion is just a
> warning, so it does not matter where the intialization is done, I'd
> prefer to keep it as is.

I understand. Thank you for your feedback. I will send a v2 shortly.

      reply	other threads:[~2022-03-03  0:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-02-28 22:52 [PATCH] btrfs: add lockdep_assert_held to need_preemptive_reclaim Niels Dossche
2022-03-02 19:30 ` David Sterba
2022-03-03  0:25   ` Niels Dossche [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=5eb61b82-6ed2-9386-b288-f57369de5adb@gmail.com \
    --to=dossche.niels@gmail.com \
    --cc=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.com \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@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