On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:23 AM Naohiro Aota <naohiro.a...@wdc.com> wrote:
>
> This is the 3/3 patch to enable tree-log on zoned filesystems.
>
> The allocation order of nodes of "fs_info->log_root_tree" and nodes of
> "root->log_root" is not the same as the writing order of them. So, the
> writing causes unaligned write errors.
>
> Reorder the allocation of them by delaying allocation of the root node of
> "fs_info->log_root_tree," so that the node buffers can go out sequentially
> to devices.
>
> Cc: Filipe Manana <fdman...@gmail.com>
> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jo...@toxicpanda.com>
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumsh...@wdc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.a...@wdc.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/disk-io.c  | 12 +++++++-----
>  fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 27 +++++++++++++++++++++------
>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> index 84c6650d5ef7..c2576c5fe62e 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> @@ -1298,16 +1298,18 @@ int btrfs_init_log_root_tree(struct 
> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>                              struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
>  {
>         struct btrfs_root *log_root;
> -       int ret;
>
>         log_root = alloc_log_tree(trans, fs_info);
>         if (IS_ERR(log_root))
>                 return PTR_ERR(log_root);
>
> -       ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root);
> -       if (ret) {
> -               btrfs_put_root(log_root);
> -               return ret;
> +       if (!btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
> +               int ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root);
> +
> +               if (ret) {
> +                       btrfs_put_root(log_root);
> +                       return ret;
> +               }
>         }
>
>         WARN_ON(fs_info->log_root_tree);
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> index 8be3164d4c5d..7ba044bfa9b1 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> @@ -3159,6 +3159,19 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>         list_add_tail(&root_log_ctx.list, &log_root_tree->log_ctxs[index2]);
>         root_log_ctx.log_transid = log_root_tree->log_transid;
>
> +       if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
> +               mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> +               if (!log_root_tree->node) {

As commented in v14, the log root tree is not protected by
fs_info->tree_log_mutex anymore.
It is fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex as of 5.10.

Everything else was addressed and looks good.
Thanks.

> +                       ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root_tree);
> +                       if (ret) {
> +                               mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> +                               mutex_unlock(&log_root_tree->log_mutex);
> +                               goto out;
> +                       }
> +               }
> +               mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> +       }
> +
>         /*
>          * Now we are safe to update the log_root_tree because we're under the
>          * log_mutex, and we're a current writer so we're holding the commit
> @@ -3317,12 +3330,14 @@ static void free_log_tree(struct btrfs_trans_handle 
> *trans,
>                 .process_func = process_one_buffer
>         };
>
> -       ret = walk_log_tree(trans, log, &wc);
> -       if (ret) {
> -               if (trans)
> -                       btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
> -               else
> -                       btrfs_handle_fs_error(log->fs_info, ret, NULL);
> +       if (log->node) {
> +               ret = walk_log_tree(trans, log, &wc);
> +               if (ret) {
> +                       if (trans)
> +                               btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
> +                       else
> +                               btrfs_handle_fs_error(log->fs_info, ret, 
> NULL);
> +               }
>         }
>
>         clear_extent_bits(&log->dirty_log_pages, 0, (u64)-1,
> --
> 2.30.0
>


-- 
Filipe David Manana,

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”

Reply via email to