On 2/20/20 4:56 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 02:55:30PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On 2/12/20 2:20 AM, Naohiro Aota wrote:
LOOP_NO_EMPTY_SIZE is solely dedicated for clustered allocation. So,
we can skip this stage and go to LOOP_GIVEUP stage to indicate we gave
up the allocation. This commit also moves the scope of the "clustered"
variable.
Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@xxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 6 ++++++
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 8f0d489f76fa..3ab0d2f5d718 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -3373,6 +3373,7 @@ enum btrfs_loop_type {
LOOP_CACHING_WAIT,
LOOP_ALLOC_CHUNK,
LOOP_NO_EMPTY_SIZE,
+ LOOP_GIVEUP,
Why do we need a new loop definition here? Can we just return ENOSPC and be
done? You don't appear to use it anywhere, so it doesn't seem like it's
needed. Thanks,
Josef
This is for other allocation policy to skip unnecessary loop stages
(e.g. LOOP_NO_EMPTY_SIZE) from an earlier stage. For example, zoned
allocation policy can implement the code below in
chunk_allocation_failed() to skip the following stages.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index 4badfae0c932..0a18c09b078b 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -3775,6 +3854,10 @@ static int chunk_allocation_failed(struct
find_free_extent_ctl *ffe_ctl)
*/
ffe_ctl->loop = LOOP_NO_EMPTY_SIZE;
return 0;
+ case BTRFS_EXTENT_ALLOC_ZONED:
+ /* give up here */
+ ffe_ctl->loop = LOOP_GIVEUP;
+ return -ENOSPC;
default:
BUG();
}
But, I can keep this LOOP_GIVEUP introduction patch later with this
zoned allocator ones.
Yes I'd rather they be with the real user, otherwise it's just confusing. Thanks,
Josef
