Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Remove unnecessary code from __btrfs_rebalance

[David Sterba]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:17:33AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> The first step fo the rebalance process, ensuring there is 1mb free on
> each device. This number seems rather small. And in fact when talking
> to the original authors their opinions were:
> 
> "man that's a little bonkers"
> "i don't think we even need that code anymore"
> "I think it was there to make sure we had room for the blank 1M at the
> beginning. I bet it goes all the way back to v0"
> "we just don't need any of that tho, i say we just delete it"
>
> Clearly, this piece of code has lost its original intent throughout
> the years. It doesn't really bring any real practical benefits to the
> relocation process.

That I would agree, 

> No functional changes.

though this sounds too bold given what code it removes. Shrink, grow in
a transaction, all of that can fail for various reasons and would have
visible effects. I'd rather reserve the 'no functional changes'
statement for cases where it's really just renaming or restructuring the
code without any side effects.

> - ret = btrfs_shrink_device(device, old_size - size_to_free);
> - if (ret == -ENOSPC)
> - break;

Shrink can be pretty heavy even before it fails with ENOSPC, I think the
runtime of balance will go down. And it could be even noticeable, as it
has to go through all chunks twice before it really fails.

Measuring that would be good as it's a thing that can be a hilight of
pull request/change overviews.

I'll add the patch to for-next for testing, please update te changelog
with the potential effects. Thanks.

Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Remove unnecessary code from __btrfs_rebalance

[Josef Bacik]

On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 10:17:33AM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> The first step fo the rebalance process, ensuring there is 1mb free on
> each device. This number seems rather small. And in fact when talking
> to the original authors their opinions were:
> 
> "man that's a little bonkers"
> "i don't think we even need that code anymore"
> "I think it was there to make sure we had room for the blank 1M at the
> beginning. I bet it goes all the way back to v0"
> "we just don't need any of that tho, i say we just delete it"
> 
> Clearly, this piece of code has lost its original intent throughout
> the years. It doesn't really bring any real practical benefits to the
> relocation process. No functional changes.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov 
> Suggested-by: Josef Bacik 

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik 

Thanks,

Josef

[PATCH] btrfs: Remove unnecessary code from __btrfs_rebalance

[Nikolay Borisov]

The first step fo the rebalance process, ensuring there is 1mb free on
each device. This number seems rather small. And in fact when talking
to the original authors their opinions were:

"man that's a little bonkers"
"i don't think we even need that code anymore"
"I think it was there to make sure we had room for the blank 1M at the
beginning. I bet it goes all the way back to v0"
"we just don't need any of that tho, i say we just delete it"

Clearly, this piece of code has lost its original intent throughout
the years. It doesn't really bring any real practical benefits to the
relocation process. No functional changes.

Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov 
Suggested-by: Josef Bacik 
---
 fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 53 --
 1 file changed, 53 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 8e36cbb355df..eb9fa8a6429c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -3645,17 +3645,11 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info 
*fs_info)
 {
struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl = fs_info->balance_ctl;
struct btrfs_root *chunk_root = fs_info->chunk_root;
-   struct btrfs_root *dev_root = fs_info->dev_root;
-   struct list_head *devices;
-   struct btrfs_device *device;
-   u64 old_size;
-   u64 size_to_free;
u64 chunk_type;
struct btrfs_chunk *chunk;
struct btrfs_path *path = NULL;
struct btrfs_key key;
struct btrfs_key found_key;
-   struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
struct extent_buffer *leaf;
int slot;
int ret;
@@ -3670,53 +3664,6 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
u32 count_sys = 0;
int chunk_reserved = 0;
 
-   /* step one make some room on all the devices */
-   devices = _info->fs_devices->devices;
-   list_for_each_entry(device, devices, dev_list) {
-   old_size = btrfs_device_get_total_bytes(device);
-   size_to_free = div_factor(old_size, 1);
-   size_to_free = min_t(u64, size_to_free, SZ_1M);
-   if (!test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_WRITEABLE, >dev_state) ||
-   btrfs_device_get_total_bytes(device) -
-   btrfs_device_get_bytes_used(device) > size_to_free ||
-   test_bit(BTRFS_DEV_STATE_REPLACE_TGT, >dev_state))
-   continue;
-
-   ret = btrfs_shrink_device(device, old_size - size_to_free);
-   if (ret == -ENOSPC)
-   break;
-   if (ret) {
-   /* btrfs_shrink_device never returns ret > 0 */
-   WARN_ON(ret > 0);
-   goto error;
-   }
-
-   trans = btrfs_start_transaction(dev_root, 0);
-   if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
-   ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
-   btrfs_info_in_rcu(fs_info,
-"resize: unable to start transaction after shrinking device %s 
(error %d), old size %llu, new size %llu",
- rcu_str_deref(device->name), ret,
- old_size, old_size - size_to_free);
-   goto error;
-   }
-
-   ret = btrfs_grow_device(trans, device, old_size);
-   if (ret) {
-   btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
-   /* btrfs_grow_device never returns ret > 0 */
-   WARN_ON(ret > 0);
-   btrfs_info_in_rcu(fs_info,
-"resize: unable to grow device after shrinking device %s 
(error %d), old size %llu, new size %llu",
- rcu_str_deref(device->name), ret,
- old_size, old_size - size_to_free);
-   goto error;
-   }
-
-   btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
-   }
-
-   /* step two, relocate all the chunks */
path = btrfs_alloc_path();
if (!path) {
ret = -ENOMEM;
-- 
2.17.1