On Tue 07-06-16 22:46:46, Ted Tso wrote:
> If there are pending blocks to be released after a commit, retrying
> the allocation after a journal commit has no hope of helping. So
> track how many pending deleted blocks there might be, and don't retry
> if there are no pending blocks.
>
> Reported-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Oops, ignore the earlier version of this patch. I bobbled the commit
> and merged in part of another change.
Couple of notes below:
> fs/ext4/balloc.c | 9 ++++++++-
> fs/ext4/ext4.h | 1 +
> fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h | 10 +++++++++-
> fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 12 ++++++++++--
> 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/balloc.c b/fs/ext4/balloc.c
> index 3020fd7..371ac63 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/balloc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/balloc.c
> @@ -603,7 +603,14 @@ int ext4_claim_free_clusters(struct ext4_sb_info *sbi,
> */
> int ext4_should_retry_alloc(struct super_block *sb, int *retries)
> {
> - if (!ext4_has_free_clusters(EXT4_SB(sb), 1, 0) ||
> + unsigned int pending_blocks;
> +
> + spin_lock(&EXT4_SB(sb)->s_md_lock);
> + pending_blocks = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_mb_free_pending;
> + spin_unlock(&EXT4_SB(sb)->s_md_lock);
> +
> + if (pending_blocks == 0 ||
> + !ext4_has_free_clusters(EXT4_SB(sb), 1, 0) ||
> (*retries)++ > 3 ||
> !EXT4_SB(sb)->s_journal)
> return 0;
But this is racy. Transaction commit could have finished before we called
ext4_should_retry_alloc() and so we will mistakenly think there's no hope
although there are blocks free now. But what you could probably do is just
return 1 without forcing a transaction commit when pending_blocks == 0.
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> index b84aa1c..96c73e6 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> @@ -1430,6 +1430,7 @@ struct ext4_sb_info {
> unsigned short *s_mb_offsets;
> unsigned int *s_mb_maxs;
> unsigned int s_group_info_size;
> + unsigned int s_mb_free_pending;
>
> /* tunables */
> unsigned long s_stripe;
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h b/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h
> index 09c1ef3..b1d52c1 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4_jbd2.h
> @@ -175,6 +175,13 @@ struct ext4_journal_cb_entry {
> * There is no guaranteed calling order of multiple registered callbacks on
> * the same transaction.
> */
> +static inline void _ext4_journal_callback_add(handle_t *handle,
> + struct ext4_journal_cb_entry *jce)
> +{
> + /* Add the jce to transaction's private list */
> + list_add_tail(&jce->jce_list, &handle->h_transaction->t_private_list);
> +}
> +
> static inline void ext4_journal_callback_add(handle_t *handle,
> void (*func)(struct super_block *sb,
> struct ext4_journal_cb_entry *jce,
Well, since ext4_mb_free_metadata() is the only user of
ext4_journal_callback_add(), ext4_journal_callback_add() won't have any
user after your patch. Maybe we could just stop playing these abstraction
games nobody currently uses and just implement a helper function to add
freeing callback to the transaction list including increment of the pending
counter.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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
