On 18.04.2018 10:27, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> do_chunk_alloc implements logic to detect whether there is currently
> pending chunk allocation (by means of space_info->chunk_alloc being
> set) and if so it loops around to the 'again' label. Additionally,
> based on the state of the space_info (e.g. whether it's full or not)
> and the return value of should_alloc_chunk() it decides whether this
> is a "hard" error (ENOSPC) or we can just return 0.
>
> This patch refactors all of this:
>
> 1. Put order to the scattered ifs handling the various cases in an
> easy-to-read if {} else if{} branches. This makes clear the various
> cases we are interested in handling.
>
> 2. Call should_alloc_chunk only once and use the result in the
> if/else if constructs. All of this is done under space_info->lock, so
> even before multiple calls of should_alloc_chunk were unnecessary.
>
> 3. Rewrite the "do {} while()" loop currently implemented via label
> into an explicit loop construct.
>
> 4. Move the mutex locking for the case where the caller is the one doing the
> allocation. For the case where the caller needs to wait a concurrent
> allocation,
> introduce a pair of mutex_lock/mutex_unlock to act as a barrier and reword
> the
> comment.
>
> 5. Switch local vars to bool type where pertinent.
>
> All in all this shouldn't introduce any functional changes.
>
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nbori...@suse.com>
> ---
>
> v2:
> * Introduce missing logic in the case where we have to loop. The correct
> behavior when a concurrent allocation is executing is to acquire/release the
> mutex and loop to check if it makes sense to continue with our allocation
> try.
>
Ping
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 73
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> 1 file changed, 36 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index 7bfc03494c39..bfb19bcdeee3 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -4601,7 +4601,8 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
> *trans,
> struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 flags, int force)
> {
> struct btrfs_space_info *space_info;
> - int wait_for_alloc = 0;
> + bool wait_for_alloc = false;
> + bool should_alloc = false;
> int ret = 0;
>
> /* Don't re-enter if we're already allocating a chunk */
> @@ -4611,45 +4612,43 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
> *trans,
> space_info = __find_space_info(fs_info, flags);
> ASSERT(space_info);
>
> -again:
> - spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
> - if (force < space_info->force_alloc)
> - force = space_info->force_alloc;
> - if (space_info->full) {
> - if (should_alloc_chunk(fs_info, space_info, force))
> - ret = -ENOSPC;
> - else
> - ret = 0;
> - spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> - return ret;
> - }
> -
> - if (!should_alloc_chunk(fs_info, space_info, force)) {
> - spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> - return 0;
> - } else if (space_info->chunk_alloc) {
> - wait_for_alloc = 1;
> - } else {
> - space_info->chunk_alloc = 1;
> - }
> -
> - spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> -
> - mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> + do {
> + spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
> + if (force < space_info->force_alloc)
> + force = space_info->force_alloc;
> + should_alloc = should_alloc_chunk(fs_info, space_info, force);
> + if (space_info->full) {
> + /* No more free physical space */
> + if (should_alloc)
> + ret = -ENOSPC;
> + else
> + ret = 0;
> + spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> + return ret;
> + } else if (!should_alloc) {
> + spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> + return 0;
> + } else if (space_info->chunk_alloc) {
> + /* Someone is already allocating, so we need to block
> + * while this someone is finished and then loop, to
> + * recheck if we should continue with our allocation
> + * try
> + */
> + wait_for_alloc = true;
> + spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> + mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> + } else {
> + /* Proceed with allocation */
> + space_info->chunk_alloc = 1;
> + wait_for_alloc = false;
> + spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> + }
>
> - /*
> - * The chunk_mutex is held throughout the entirety of a chunk
> - * allocation, so once we've acquired the chunk_mutex we know that the
> - * other guy is done and we need to recheck and see if we should
> - * allocate.
> - */
> - if (wait_for_alloc) {
> - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> - wait_for_alloc = 0;
> cond_resched();
> - goto again;
> - }
> + } while (wait_for_alloc);
>
> + mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> trans->allocating_chunk = true;
>
> /*
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
