From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: use a normal workqueue for rmw_workers
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:05:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cbf20712-6acc-bbf6-99ba-1eccf6518644@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220418044311.359720-4-hch@lst.de>
On 2022/4/18 12:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> rmw_workers doesn't need ordered execution or thread disabling threshold
> (as the thresh parameter is less than DFT_THRESHOLD).
>
> Just switch to the normal workqueues that use a lot less resources,
> especially in the work_struct vs btrfs_work structures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Thanks,
Qu
> ---
> fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 +-
> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 5 ++---
> fs/btrfs/raid56.c | 29 ++++++++++++++---------------
> 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> index 59135f0850a6e..74fbd92f704f9 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> @@ -853,7 +853,7 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info {
> struct btrfs_workqueue *endio_workers;
> struct btrfs_workqueue *endio_meta_workers;
> struct btrfs_workqueue *endio_raid56_workers;
> - struct btrfs_workqueue *rmw_workers;
> + struct workqueue_struct *rmw_workers;
> struct btrfs_workqueue *endio_meta_write_workers;
> struct btrfs_workqueue *endio_write_workers;
> struct btrfs_workqueue *endio_freespace_worker;
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> index 980616cc08bfc..cc7ca8a0df697 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> @@ -2290,7 +2290,7 @@ static void btrfs_stop_all_workers(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> btrfs_destroy_workqueue(fs_info->workers);
> btrfs_destroy_workqueue(fs_info->endio_workers);
> btrfs_destroy_workqueue(fs_info->endio_raid56_workers);
> - btrfs_destroy_workqueue(fs_info->rmw_workers);
> + destroy_workqueue(fs_info->rmw_workers);
> btrfs_destroy_workqueue(fs_info->endio_write_workers);
> btrfs_destroy_workqueue(fs_info->endio_freespace_worker);
> btrfs_destroy_workqueue(fs_info->delayed_workers);
> @@ -2500,8 +2500,7 @@ static int btrfs_init_workqueues(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> fs_info->endio_raid56_workers =
> btrfs_alloc_workqueue(fs_info, "endio-raid56", flags,
> max_active, 4);
> - fs_info->rmw_workers =
> - btrfs_alloc_workqueue(fs_info, "rmw", flags, max_active, 2);
> + fs_info->rmw_workers = alloc_workqueue("btrfs-rmw", flags, max_active);
> fs_info->endio_write_workers =
> btrfs_alloc_workqueue(fs_info, "endio-write", flags,
> max_active, 2);
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> index 79438cdd604ea..c1c320f87216d 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/raid56.c
> @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ struct btrfs_raid_bio {
> /*
> * for scheduling work in the helper threads
> */
> - struct btrfs_work work;
> + struct work_struct work;
>
> /*
> * bio list and bio_list_lock are used
> @@ -176,8 +176,8 @@ struct btrfs_raid_bio {
>
> static int __raid56_parity_recover(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio);
> static noinline void finish_rmw(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio);
> -static void rmw_work(struct btrfs_work *work);
> -static void read_rebuild_work(struct btrfs_work *work);
> +static void rmw_work(struct work_struct *work);
> +static void read_rebuild_work(struct work_struct *work);
> static int fail_bio_stripe(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio, struct bio *bio);
> static int fail_rbio_index(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio, int failed);
> static void __free_raid_bio(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio);
> @@ -186,12 +186,12 @@ static int alloc_rbio_pages(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio);
>
> static noinline void finish_parity_scrub(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio,
> int need_check);
> -static void scrub_parity_work(struct btrfs_work *work);
> +static void scrub_parity_work(struct work_struct *work);
>
> -static void start_async_work(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio, btrfs_func_t work_func)
> +static void start_async_work(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio, work_func_t work_func)
> {
> - btrfs_init_work(&rbio->work, work_func, NULL, NULL);
> - btrfs_queue_work(rbio->bioc->fs_info->rmw_workers, &rbio->work);
> + INIT_WORK(&rbio->work, work_func);
> + queue_work(rbio->bioc->fs_info->rmw_workers, &rbio->work);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -1599,7 +1599,7 @@ struct btrfs_plug_cb {
> struct blk_plug_cb cb;
> struct btrfs_fs_info *info;
> struct list_head rbio_list;
> - struct btrfs_work work;
> + struct work_struct work;
> };
>
> /*
> @@ -1667,7 +1667,7 @@ static void run_plug(struct btrfs_plug_cb *plug)
> * if the unplug comes from schedule, we have to push the
> * work off to a helper thread
> */
> -static void unplug_work(struct btrfs_work *work)
> +static void unplug_work(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct btrfs_plug_cb *plug;
> plug = container_of(work, struct btrfs_plug_cb, work);
> @@ -1680,9 +1680,8 @@ static void btrfs_raid_unplug(struct blk_plug_cb *cb, bool from_schedule)
> plug = container_of(cb, struct btrfs_plug_cb, cb);
>
> if (from_schedule) {
> - btrfs_init_work(&plug->work, unplug_work, NULL, NULL);
> - btrfs_queue_work(plug->info->rmw_workers,
> - &plug->work);
> + INIT_WORK(&plug->work, unplug_work);
> + queue_work(plug->info->rmw_workers, &plug->work);
> return;
> }
> run_plug(plug);
> @@ -2167,7 +2166,7 @@ int raid56_parity_recover(struct bio *bio, struct btrfs_io_context *bioc,
>
> }
>
> -static void rmw_work(struct btrfs_work *work)
> +static void rmw_work(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio;
>
> @@ -2175,7 +2174,7 @@ static void rmw_work(struct btrfs_work *work)
> raid56_rmw_stripe(rbio);
> }
>
> -static void read_rebuild_work(struct btrfs_work *work)
> +static void read_rebuild_work(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio;
>
> @@ -2621,7 +2620,7 @@ static void raid56_parity_scrub_stripe(struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio)
> validate_rbio_for_parity_scrub(rbio);
> }
>
> -static void scrub_parity_work(struct btrfs_work *work)
> +static void scrub_parity_work(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct btrfs_raid_bio *rbio;
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-18 8:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-18 4:43 btrfs_workqueue cleanups Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-18 4:43 ` [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: simplify WQ_HIGHPRI handling in struct btrfs_workqueue Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-18 8:03 ` Qu Wenruo
2022-04-22 21:05 ` David Sterba
2022-04-22 22:58 ` Qu Wenruo
2022-04-23 5:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-18 4:43 ` [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: use normal workqueues for scrub Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-18 8:04 ` Qu Wenruo
2022-04-18 4:43 ` [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: use a normal workqueue for rmw_workers Christoph Hellwig
2022-04-18 8:05 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2022-04-22 21:22 ` btrfs_workqueue cleanups 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=cbf20712-6acc-bbf6-99ba-1eccf6518644@suse.com \
--to=wqu@suse.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.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