On 22/01/2021 16:15, Josef Bacik wrote:
>> @@ -2725,6 +2726,9 @@ fetch_cluster_info(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> {
>> struct btrfs_free_cluster *ret = NULL;
>>
>> + if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info))
>> + return NULL;
>> +
>
> This is unrelated to the rest of the changes, seems like something that was just
> missed? Should probably be in its own patch.
Hmm probably belongs to another patch, just need to find to which.
>
>> *empty_cluster = 0;
>> if (btrfs_mixed_space_info(space_info))
>> return ret;
>> @@ -2808,7 +2812,11 @@ static int unpin_extent_range(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> space_info->max_extent_size = 0;
>> percpu_counter_add_batch(&space_info->total_bytes_pinned,
>> -len, BTRFS_TOTAL_BYTES_PINNED_BATCH);
>> - if (cache->ro) {
>> + if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
>> + /* Need reset before reusing in a zoned block group */
>> + space_info->bytes_zone_unusable += len;
>> + readonly = true;
>> + } else if (cache->ro) {
>> space_info->bytes_readonly += len;
>> readonly = true;
>> }
>
> Is this right? If we're balancing a block group then it could be marked ro and
> be zoned, so don't we want to account for this in ->bytes_readonly if it's read
> only? So probably more correct to do
>
> if (cache->ro) {
> /* stuff */
> } else if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info) {
> /* other stuff */
> }
>
Fixed
