Skip to content

L
linux

xiphi1978 / linux

通知 2
Star 0
Fork 0
L
linux

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 26 7月, 2016 30 次提交
  3. 21 7月, 2016 3 次提交
  5. 08 7月, 2016 7 次提交
    • J
      Btrfs: use FLUSH_LIMIT for relocation in reserve_metadata_bytes · 8ca17f0f
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      We used to allow you to set FLUSH_ALL and then just wouldn't do things like
commit transactions or wait on ordered extents if we noticed you were in a
transaction.  However now that all the flushing for FLUSH_ALL is asynchronous
we've lost the ability to tell, and we could end up deadlocking.  So instead use
FLUSH_LIMIT in reserve_metadata_bytes in relocation and then return -EAGAIN if
we error out to preserve the previous behavior.  I've also added an ASSERT() to
catch anybody else who tries to do this.  Thanks,
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      8ca17f0f
    • J
      Btrfs: fill relocation block rsv after allocation · ac2fabac
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      Since we set the reloc control before we've reserved our space for relocation we
could race with a root being dirtied and not actually have space to do our init
reloc root.  So once we've allocated it and set it up go ahead and make our
reservation before setting the relocate control, that way anybody who tries to
do the reloc root init has space to use.  Thanks,
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      ac2fabac
    • J
      Btrfs: always use trans->block_rsv for orphans · 40acc3ee
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      This is the case all the time anyway except for relocation which could be doing
a reloc root for a non ref counted root, in which case we'd end up with some
random block rsv rather than the one we have our reservation in.  If there isn't
enough space in the block rsv we are trying to steal from we'll BUG() because we
expect there to be space for the orphan to make its reservation.  Thanks,
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      40acc3ee
    • J
      Btrfs: change how we calculate the global block rsv · ae2e4728
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      Traditionally we've calculated the global block rsv by guessing how much of the
metadata used amount was the extent tree, and then taking the data size and
figuring out how large the csum tree would have to be to hold that much data.

This is imprecise and falls down on MIXED file systems as we can't trust the
data used amount.  This resulted in failures for xfstests generic/333 because it
creates lots of clones, which explodes out the extent tree.  Our global reserve
calculations were woefully inaccurate in this case which meant we got into a
situation where we did not have enough reserved to do our work.

We know we only use the global block rsv for the extent, csum, and root trees,
so just get the bytes used for these trees and use that as the basis of our
global reserve.  Since these are not reference counted trees the bytes_used
value will be accurate.  This fixed the transaction aborts seen with
generic/333.  Thanks,
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      ae2e4728
    • J
      Btrfs: use root when checking need_async_flush · 87241c2e
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      Instead of doing fs_info->fs_root in need_async_flush, which may not be set
during recovery when mounting, just pass the root itself in, which makes more
sense as thats what btrfs_calc_reclaim_metadata_size takes.
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Reported-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      87241c2e
    • J
      Btrfs: don't bother kicking async if there's nothing to reclaim · d38b349c
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      We do this check when we start the async reclaimer thread, might as well check
before we kick it off to save us some cycles.  Thanks,
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      d38b349c
    • J
      Btrfs: fix release reserved extents trace points · 31bada7c
      由 Josef Bacik 提交于 
      We were doing trace_btrfs_release_reserved_extent() in pin_down_extent which
isn't quite right because we will go through and free that extent later when we
unpin, so it messes up apps that are accounting for the reservation space.  We
were also unconditionally doing it in __btrfs_free_reserved_extent(), when we
only actually free the reservation instead of pinning the extent.  Thanks,
Signed-off-by: NJosef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: NDavid Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
      31bada7c