For a file systems with a very large number of block groups, if all of
the block group bitmaps are in memory and the file system is
relatively badly fragmented, it's possible ext4_mb_regular_allocator()
to take a long time trying to find a good match. This is especially
true if the tuning parameter mb_max_to_scan has been sent to a very
large number. So add a cond_resched() to avoid soft lockup warnings
and to provide better system responsiveness.
For ext4_free_blocks(), if we are deleting a large range of blocks,
and data=journal is enabled so that EXT4_FREE_BLOCKS_FORGET is passed,
the loop to call sb_find_get_block() and to call ext4_forget() can
take over 10-15 milliseocnds or more. So it's better to add a
cond_resched() here a well.
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx>
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index def8408..1a9c22b 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -2105,6 +2105,7 @@ repeat:
group = ac->ac_g_ex.fe_group;
for (i = 0; i < ngroups; group++, i++) {
+ cond_resched();
/*
* Artificially restricted ngroups for non-extent
* files makes group > ngroups possible on first loop.
@@ -4612,10 +4613,11 @@ void ext4_free_blocks(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
BUG_ON(bh && (count > 1));
for (i = 0; i < count; i++) {
+ cond_resched();
if (!bh)
tbh = sb_find_get_block(inode->i_sb,
block + i);
- if (unlikely(!tbh))
+ if (!tbh)
continue;
ext4_forget(handle, flags & EXT4_FREE_BLOCKS_METADATA,
inode, tbh, block + i);
--
1.7.12.rc0.22.gcdd159b
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
