thr3ads.net - Btrfs devel - [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Josef Bacik

2011-Apr-12 00:30 UTC

[PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

Everytime we try to allocate disk space we try and see if we can pre-emptively
allocate a chunk, but in the common case we don''t allocate anything, so
there is
no sense in taking the chunk_mutex at all.  So instead if we are allocating a
chunk, mark it in the space_info so we don''t get two people trying to
allocate
at the same time.  Thanks,

Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/ctree.h       |    5 +++--
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
index 0d00a07..a566780 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
@@ -740,10 +740,11 @@ struct btrfs_space_info {
 	 */
 	unsigned long reservation_progress;
 
-	int full;		/* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
+	int full:1;		/* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
 				   chunks for this space */
-	int force_alloc;	/* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
+	int force_alloc:1;	/* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
 				   this space */
+	int chunk_alloc:1;	/* set if we are allocating a chunk */
 
 	struct list_head list;
 
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index f619c3c..80c048f 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -3020,6 +3020,7 @@ static int update_space_info(struct btrfs_fs_info *info,
u64 flags,
 	found->bytes_may_use = 0;
 	found->full = 0;
 	found->force_alloc = 0;
+	found->chunk_alloc = 0;
 	*space_info = found;
 	list_add_rcu(&found->list, &info->space_info);
 	atomic_set(&found->caching_threads, 0);
@@ -3273,10 +3274,9 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
 {
 	struct btrfs_space_info *space_info;
 	struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = extent_root->fs_info;
+	int wait_for_alloc = 0;
 	int ret = 0;
 
-	mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
-
 	flags = btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile(extent_root, flags);
 
 	space_info = __find_space_info(extent_root->fs_info, flags);
@@ -3287,6 +3287,7 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
 	}
 	BUG_ON(!space_info);
 
+again:
 	spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
 	if (space_info->force_alloc)
 		force = 1;
@@ -3299,9 +3300,27 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
 					  alloc_bytes)) {
 		spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
 		goto out;
+	} else if (space_info->chunk_alloc) {
+		wait_for_alloc = 1;
+	} else {
+		space_info->chunk_alloc = 1;
 	}
 	spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
 
+	mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
+
+	/*
+	 * The chunk_mutex is held throughout the entirety of a chunk
+	 * allocation, so once we''ve acquired the chunk_mutex we know that
the
+	 * other guy is done and we need to recheck and see if we should
+	 * allocate.
+	 */
+	if (wait_for_alloc) {
+		mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
+		wait_for_alloc = 0;
+		goto again;
+	}
+
 	/*
 	 * If we have mixed data/metadata chunks we want to make sure we keep
 	 * allocating mixed chunks instead of individual chunks.
@@ -3327,6 +3346,7 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
 		space_info->full = 1;
 	else
 		ret = 1;
+	space_info->chunk_alloc = 0;
 	space_info->force_alloc = 0;
 	spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
 out:
-- 
1.7.2.3

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

liubo

2011-Apr-12 01:33 UTC

head link

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

On 04/12/2011 08:30 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:> Everytime we try to allocate disk space we try and see if we can
pre-emptively
> allocate a chunk, but in the common case we don''t allocate
anything, so there is
> no sense in taking the chunk_mutex at all.  So instead if we are allocating
a
> chunk, mark it in the space_info so we don''t get two people trying
to allocate
> at the same time.  Thanks,
> 
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/ctree.h       |    5 +++--
>  fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
>  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> index 0d00a07..a566780 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> @@ -740,10 +740,11 @@ struct btrfs_space_info {
>  	 */
>  	unsigned long reservation_progress;
>  
> -	int full;		/* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
> +	int full:1;		/* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
>  				   chunks for this space */
> -	int force_alloc;	/* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
> +	int force_alloc:1;	/* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
>  				   this space */
> +	int chunk_alloc:1;	/* set if we are allocating a chunk */
>  
>  	struct list_head list;
>  
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index f619c3c..80c048f 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -3020,6 +3020,7 @@ static int update_space_info(struct btrfs_fs_info
*info, u64 flags,
>  	found->bytes_may_use = 0;
>  	found->full = 0;
>  	found->force_alloc = 0;
> +	found->chunk_alloc = 0;
>  	*space_info = found;
>  	list_add_rcu(&found->list, &info->space_info);
>  	atomic_set(&found->caching_threads, 0);
> @@ -3273,10 +3274,9 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
>  {
>  	struct btrfs_space_info *space_info;
>  	struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = extent_root->fs_info;
> +	int wait_for_alloc = 0;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
> -	mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> -
>  	flags = btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile(extent_root, flags);
>  
>  	space_info = __find_space_info(extent_root->fs_info, flags);
> @@ -3287,6 +3287,7 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
>  	}
>  	BUG_ON(!space_info);
>  
> +again:
>  	spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
>  	if (space_info->force_alloc)
>  		force = 1;
> @@ -3299,9 +3300,27 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
>  					  alloc_bytes)) {
>  		spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
>  		goto out;
hmm, the "goto" will lead to problems, cause in "out" clause
there is a mutex_unlock(), which
we do not have a mutex_lock yet.

thanks,
liubo
> +	} else if (space_info->chunk_alloc) {
> +		wait_for_alloc = 1;
> +	} else {
> +		space_info->chunk_alloc = 1;
>  	}
>  	spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The chunk_mutex is held throughout the entirety of a chunk
> +	 * allocation, so once we''ve acquired the chunk_mutex we know
that the
> +	 * other guy is done and we need to recheck and see if we should
> +	 * allocate.
> +	 */
> +	if (wait_for_alloc) {
> +		mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> +		wait_for_alloc = 0;
> +		goto again;
> +	}
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * If we have mixed data/metadata chunks we want to make sure we keep
>  	 * allocating mixed chunks instead of individual chunks.
> @@ -3327,6 +3346,7 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle
*trans,
>  		space_info->full = 1;
>  	else
>  		ret = 1;
> +	space_info->chunk_alloc = 0;
>  	space_info->force_alloc = 0;
>  	spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
>  out:
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Josef Bacik

2011-Apr-12 12:42 UTC

head link

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 09:33:03AM +0800, liubo wrote:> On 04/12/2011 08:30 AM, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > Everytime we try to allocate disk space we try and see if we can
pre-emptively
> > allocate a chunk, but in the common case we don''t allocate
anything, so there is
> > no sense in taking the chunk_mutex at all.  So instead if we are
allocating a
> > chunk, mark it in the space_info so we don''t get two people
trying to allocate
> > at the same time.  Thanks,
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/ctree.h       |    5 +++--
> >  fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c |   24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> >  2 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > index 0d00a07..a566780 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > @@ -740,10 +740,11 @@ struct btrfs_space_info {
> >  	 */
> >  	unsigned long reservation_progress;
> >  
> > -	int full;		/* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
> > +	int full:1;		/* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
> >  				   chunks for this space */
> > -	int force_alloc;	/* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
> > +	int force_alloc:1;	/* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
> >  				   this space */
> > +	int chunk_alloc:1;	/* set if we are allocating a chunk */
> >  
> >  	struct list_head list;
> >  
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > index f619c3c..80c048f 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > @@ -3020,6 +3020,7 @@ static int update_space_info(struct
btrfs_fs_info *info, u64 flags,
> >  	found->bytes_may_use = 0;
> >  	found->full = 0;
> >  	found->force_alloc = 0;
> > +	found->chunk_alloc = 0;
> >  	*space_info = found;
> >  	list_add_rcu(&found->list, &info->space_info);
> >  	atomic_set(&found->caching_threads, 0);
> > @@ -3273,10 +3274,9 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct
btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >  {
> >  	struct btrfs_space_info *space_info;
> >  	struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = extent_root->fs_info;
> > +	int wait_for_alloc = 0;
> >  	int ret = 0;
> >  
> > -	mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> > -
> >  	flags = btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile(extent_root, flags);
> >  
> >  	space_info = __find_space_info(extent_root->fs_info, flags);
> > @@ -3287,6 +3287,7 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct
btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >  	}
> >  	BUG_ON(!space_info);
> >  
> > +again:
> >  	spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
> >  	if (space_info->force_alloc)
> >  		force = 1;
> > @@ -3299,9 +3300,27 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct
btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >  					  alloc_bytes)) {
> >  		spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
> >  		goto out;
> 
> hmm, the "goto" will lead to problems, cause in "out"
clause there is a mutex_unlock(), which
> we do not have a mutex_lock yet.
>
Hrm I wonder why xfstests didn''t trip over that, thats what I get for
patching
while watching the kid.  Thanks,

Josef 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

David Sterba

2011-Apr-12 15:36 UTC

head link

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 08:30:24PM -0400, Josef Bacik
wrote:> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> index 0d00a07..a566780 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> @@ -740,10 +740,11 @@ struct btrfs_space_info {
>  	 */
>  	unsigned long reservation_progress;
>  
> -	int full;		/* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
> +	int full:1;		/* indicates that we cannot allocate any more
>  				   chunks for this space */
> -	int force_alloc;	/* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
> +	int force_alloc:1;	/* set if we need to force a chunk alloc for
>  				   this space */
> +	int chunk_alloc:1;	/* set if we are allocating a chunk */
>  
>  	struct list_head list;
>  
please make the bitfields unsigned.

david
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

David Sterba

2011-Apr-13 12:11 UTC

head link

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 08:42:39AM -0400, Josef Bacik
wrote:> > hmm, the "goto" will lead to problems, cause in
"out" clause there is a mutex_unlock(), which
> > we do not have a mutex_lock yet.
> >
> 
> Hrm I wonder why xfstests didn''t trip over that, thats what I get
for patching
> while watching the kid.  Thanks,
a ''dad lock'' :)

dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs"
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Btrfs devel - Apr 2011 - [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

[PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc

Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid taking the chunk_mutex in do_chunk_alloc