On 23.11.18 г. 15:45 ч., David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:42:28AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22.11.18 г. 11:12 ч., Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21.11.18 г. 20:59 ч., Josef Bacik wrote:
>>>> From: Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com>
>>>>
>>>> We do this dance in cleanup_ref_head and check_ref_cleanup, unify it
>>>> into a helper and cleanup the calling functions.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jba...@fb.com>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval <osan...@fb.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>>> fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.h | 3 ++-
>>>> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 22 +++-------------------
>>>> 3 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c b/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c
>>>> index 9301b3ad9217..b3e4c9fcb664 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.c
>>>> @@ -400,6 +400,20 @@ struct btrfs_delayed_ref_head *btrfs_select_ref_head(
>>>> return head;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +void btrfs_delete_ref_head(struct btrfs_delayed_ref_root *delayed_refs,
>>>> + struct btrfs_delayed_ref_head *head)
>>>> +{
>>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&delayed_refs->lock);
>>>> + lockdep_assert_held(&head->lock);
>>>> +
>>>> + rb_erase_cached(&head->href_node, &delayed_refs->href_root);
>>>> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&head->href_node);
>>>> + atomic_dec(&delayed_refs->num_entries);
>>>> + delayed_refs->num_heads--;
>>>> + if (head->processing == 0)
>>>> + delayed_refs->num_heads_ready--;
>>>
>>> num_heads_ready will never execute in cleanup_ref_head, since
>>> processing == 0 only when the ref head is unselected. Perhaps those 2
>>> lines shouldn't be in this function? I find it a bit confusing that if
>>> processing is 0 we decrement num_heads_ready in check_ref_cleanup, but
>>> in unselect_delayed_ref_head we set it to 0 and increment it.
>>>
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> /*
>>>> * Helper to insert the ref_node to the tail or merge with tail.
>>>> *
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.h b/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.h
>>>> index 8e20c5cb5404..d2af974f68a1 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.h
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/delayed-ref.h
>>>> @@ -261,7 +261,8 @@ static inline void btrfs_delayed_ref_unlock(struct
>>>> btrfs_delayed_ref_head *head)
>>>> {
>>>> mutex_unlock(&head->mutex);
>>>> }
>>>> -
>>>> +void btrfs_delete_ref_head(struct btrfs_delayed_ref_root *delayed_refs,
>>>> + struct btrfs_delayed_ref_head *head);
>>>>
>>>> struct btrfs_delayed_ref_head *btrfs_select_ref_head(
>>>> struct btrfs_delayed_ref_root *delayed_refs);
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>> index d242a1174e50..c36b3a42f2bb 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>> @@ -2474,12 +2474,9 @@ static int cleanup_ref_head(struct
>>>> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>>> spin_unlock(&delayed_refs->lock);
>>>> return 1;
>>>> }
>>>> - delayed_refs->num_heads--;
>>>> - rb_erase_cached(&head->href_node, &delayed_refs->href_root);
>>>> - RB_CLEAR_NODE(&head->href_node);
>>>> + btrfs_delete_ref_head(delayed_refs, head);
>>>> spin_unlock(&head->lock);
>>>> spin_unlock(&delayed_refs->lock);
>>>> - atomic_dec(&delayed_refs->num_entries);
>>>>
>>>> trace_run_delayed_ref_head(fs_info, head, 0);
>>>>
>>>> @@ -6984,22 +6981,9 @@ static noinline int check_ref_cleanup(struct
>>>> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>>> if (!mutex_trylock(&head->mutex))
>>>> goto out;
>>>>
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * at this point we have a head with no other entries. Go
>>>> - * ahead and process it.
>>>> - */
>>>> - rb_erase_cached(&head->href_node, &delayed_refs->href_root);
>>>> - RB_CLEAR_NODE(&head->href_node);
>>>> - atomic_dec(&delayed_refs->num_entries);
>>>> -
>>>> - /*
>>>> - * we don't take a ref on the node because we're removing it from the
>>>> - * tree, so we just steal the ref the tree was holding.
>>>> - */
>>>> - delayed_refs->num_heads--;
>>>> - if (head->processing == 0)
>>>> - delayed_refs->num_heads_ready--;
>>>> + btrfs_delete_ref_head(delayed_refs, head);
>>>> head->processing = 0;
>>
>> On a closer inspection I think here we can do:
>>
>> ASSERT(head->processing == 0) because at that point we've taken the
>> head->lock spinlock which is held during ordinary delayed refs
>> processing (in __btrfs_run_delayed_refs) when the head is selected (and
>> processing is 1). So head->processing == 0 here I think is a hard
>> invariant of the code. The decrement here should pair with the increment
>> when the head was initially added to the tree.
>>
>> In cleanup_ref_head we don't need to ever worry about num_heads_ready
>> since it has already been decremented by btrfs_select_ref_head.
>>
>> As a matter fact this counter is not used anywhere so we might as well
>> just remove it.
>
> The logic does not use it, there's only a WARN_ON in
> btrfs_select_ref_head, that's more like a debugging or assertion that
> everything is fine. So the question is whether to keep it as a
> consistency check (and add comments) or remove it and simplify the code.
IMO it should go. A later patch pretty much tracks what this number used
to to track - btrfs: only track ref_heads in delayed_ref_updates.
Even for consistency I don't see much value brought by num_heads_ready.
>
