Skip to content

C
clone-Linux

gsplhtlxg / clone-Linux

通知 2
Star 0
Fork 1
C
clone-Linux

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 21 2月, 2013 9 次提交
    • J
      Btrfs: remove extent mapping if we fail to add chunk · 0f5d42b2
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      I got a double free error when unmounting a file system that failed to add a
chunk during its operation.  This is because we will kfree the mapping that
we created but leave the extent_map in the em_tree for chunks.  So to fix
this just remove the extent_map when we error out so we don't run into this
problem.  Thanks,
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      0f5d42b2
    • J
      Btrfs: fix chunk allocation error handling · 04487488
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      If we error out allocating a dev extent we will have already created the
block group and such which will cause problems since the allocator may have
tried to allocate out of the block group that no longer exists.  This will
cause BUG_ON()'s in the bio submission path.  This also makes a failure to
allocate a dev extent a non-abort error, we will just clean up the dev
extents we did allocate and exit.  Now if we fail to delete the dev extents
we will abort since we can't have half of the dev extents hanging around,
but this will make us much less likely to abort.  Thanks,
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      04487488
    • M
      Btrfs: use bit operation for ->fs_state · 87533c47
      由 Miao Xie 提交于 
      There is no lock to protect fs_info->fs_state, it will introduce
some problems, such as the value may be covered by the other task
when several tasks modify it. For example:
	Task0 - CPU0		Task1 - CPU1
	mov %fs_state rax
	or $0x1 rax
				mov %fs_state rax
				or $0x2 rax
	mov rax %fs_state
				mov rax %fs_state
The expected value is 3, but in fact, it is 2.

Though this problem doesn't happen now (because there is only one
flag currently), the code is error prone, if we add other flags,
the above problem will happen to a certainty.

Now we use bit operation for it to fix the above problem.
In this way, we can make the code more robust and be easy to
add new flags.
Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      87533c47
    • M
      Btrfs: use seqlock to protect fs_info->avail_{data, metadata, system}_alloc_bits · de98ced9
      由 Miao Xie 提交于 
      There is no lock to protect
  fs_info->avail_{data, metadata, system}_alloc_bits,
it may introduce some problem, such as the wrong profile
information, so we add a seqlock to protect them.
Signed-off-by: NZhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      de98ced9
    • M
      Btrfs: use the inode own lock to protect its delalloc_bytes · df0af1a5
      由 Miao Xie 提交于 
      We need not use a global lock to protect the delalloc_bytes of the
inode, just use its own lock. In this way, we can reduce the lock
contention and ->delalloc_lock will just protect delalloc inode
list.
Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      df0af1a5
    • M
      Btrfs: use percpu counter for fs_info->delalloc_bytes · 963d678b
      由 Miao Xie 提交于 
      fs_info->delalloc_bytes is accessed very frequently, so use percpu
counter instead of the u64 variant for it to reduce the lock
contention.

This patch also fixed the problem that we access the variant
without the lock protection.At worst, we would not flush the
delalloc inodes, and just return ENOSPC error when we still have
some free space in the fs.
Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      963d678b
    • M
      Btrfs: use percpu counter for dirty metadata count · e2d84521
      由 Miao Xie 提交于 
      ->dirty_metadata_bytes is accessed very frequently, so use percpu
counter instead of the u64 variant to reduce the contention of
the lock.

This patch also fixed the problem that we access it without
lock protection in __btrfs_btree_balance_dirty(), which may
cause we skip the dirty pages flush.
Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      e2d84521
    • M
      Btrfs: protect fs_info->alloc_start · c018daec
      由 Miao Xie 提交于 
      fs_info->alloc_start is a 64bits variant, can be accessed by
multi-task, but it is not protected strictly, it can be changed
while we are accessing it. On 32bit machine, we will get wrong
value because we access it by two instructions.(In fact, it is
also possible that the same problem happens on the 64bit machine,
because the compiler may split the 64bit operation into two 32bit
operation.)

For example:
Assuming -> alloc_start is 0x0000 0000 0001 0000 at the beginning,
then we remount and set ->alloc_start to 0x0000 0100 0000 0000.
	Task0 			Task1
				load high 32 bits
	set high 32 bits
	set low 32 bits
				load low 32 bits

Task1 will get 0.

This patch fixes this problem by using two locks to protect it
	fs_info->chunk_mutex
	sb->s_umount
On the read side, we just need get one of these two locks, and on
the write side, we must lock all of them.
Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      c018daec
    • M
      Btrfs: add a comment for fs_info->max_inline · 8c6a3ee6
      由 Miao Xie 提交于 
      Though ->max_inline is a 64bit variant, and may be accessed by
multi-task, but it is just suggestive number, so we needn't add
anything to protect fs_info->max_inline, just add a comment to
explain wny we don't use a lock to protect it.
Signed-off-by: NMiao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
      8c6a3ee6
  3. 20 2月, 2013 26 次提交
  5. 16 2月, 2013 1 次提交
    • D
      btrfs: access superblock via pagecache in scan_one_device · 6f60cbd3
      由 David Sterba 提交于 
      btrfs_scan_one_device is calling set_blocksize() which can race
with a concurrent process making dirty page cache pages.  It can end up
dropping dirty page cache pages on the floor, which isn't very nice when
someone is just running btrfs dev scan to find filesystems on the
box.

Now that udev is registering btrfs devices as it discovers them, we can
actually end up racing with our own mkfs program too.  When this
happens, we drop some of the important blocks written by mkfs.

This commit changes scan_one_device to read the super out of the page
cache instead of trying to use bread.  This way we don't have to care
about the blocksize of the device.

This also drops the invalidate_bdev() call.  It wasn't very polite to
invalidate during the scan either.  mkfs is putting the super into the
page cache, there's no reason to invalidate at this point.
Signed-off-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: NChris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
      6f60cbd3
  7. 15 2月, 2013 1 次提交
  9. 07 2月, 2013 1 次提交
  11. 06 2月, 2013 2 次提交