On 22.08.19 г. 22:10 ч., Josef Bacik wrote:
> Now that we no longer partially fill tickets we need to rework
> wake_all_tickets to call btrfs_try_to_wakeup_tickets() in order to see
> if any subsequent tickets are able to be satisfied. If our tickets_id
> changes we know something happened and we can keep flushing.
>
> Also if we find a ticket that is smaller than the first ticket in our
> queue then we want to retry the flushing loop again in case
> may_commit_transaction() decides we could satisfy the ticket by
> committing the transaction.
>
> Rename this to maybe_fail_all_tickets() while we're at it, to better
> reflect what the function is actually doing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jo...@toxicpanda.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/space-info.c | 41 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/space-info.c b/fs/btrfs/space-info.c
> index c2143ddb7f4a..dd4adfa75a71 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/space-info.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/space-info.c
> @@ -679,19 +679,46 @@ static inline int need_do_async_reclaim(struct
> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> !test_bit(BTRFS_FS_STATE_REMOUNTING, &fs_info->fs_state));
> }
>
> -static bool wake_all_tickets(struct list_head *head)
> +static bool maybe_fail_all_tickets(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + struct btrfs_space_info *space_info)
> {
> struct reserve_ticket *ticket;
> + u64 tickets_id = space_info->tickets_id;
> + u64 first_ticket_bytes = 0;
> +
> + while (!list_empty(&space_info->tickets) &&
> + tickets_id == space_info->tickets_id) {
> + ticket = list_first_entry(&space_info->tickets,
> + struct reserve_ticket, list);
> +
> + /*
> + * may_commit_transaction will avoid committing the transaction
> + * if it doesn't feel like the space reclaimed by the commit
> + * would result in the ticket succeeding. However if we have a
> + * smaller ticket in the queue it may be small enough to be
> + * satisified by committing the transaction, so if any
> + * subsequent ticket is smaller than the first ticket go ahead
> + * and send us back for another loop through the enospc flushing
> + * code.
> + */
> + if (first_ticket_bytes == 0)
> + first_ticket_bytes = ticket->bytes;
> + else if (first_ticket_bytes > ticket->bytes)
> + return true;
>
> - while (!list_empty(head)) {
> - ticket = list_first_entry(head, struct reserve_ticket, list);
> list_del_init(&ticket->list);
> ticket->error = -ENOSPC;
> wake_up(&ticket->wait);
> - if (ticket->bytes != ticket->orig_bytes)
> - return true;
> +
> + /*
> + * We're just throwing tickets away, so more flushing may not
> + * trip over btrfs_try_granting_tickets, so we need to call it
> + * here to see if we can make progress with the next ticket in
> + * the list.
> + */
> + btrfs_try_granting_tickets(fs_info, space_info);
> }
> - return false;
> + return (tickets_id != space_info->tickets_id);
> }
>
> /*
> @@ -759,7 +786,7 @@ static void btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space(struct
> work_struct *work)
> if (flush_state > COMMIT_TRANS) {
> commit_cycles++;
> if (commit_cycles > 2) {
> - if (wake_all_tickets(&space_info->tickets)) {
> + if (maybe_fail_all_tickets(fs_info,
> space_info)) {
This looks odd. A function called "maybe_fail" which if it returns true
then we are sure we haven't failed all tickets, instead make another go
through the flushing machinery. I think the problem stems from the fact
it's doing 3 things, namely:
1. Failing all tickets, that aren't smaller than the initial one
2. Trying to satisfy other tickets apart from the one failed
3. If it succeeded it signals to the flushing machinery to make another go
The function's name really reflects what's going on in 1. But 2 and 3
are also major part of the logic. I think there is 'impedance mismatch'
here. I'm at a loss what to do here, honestly.
> flush_state = FLUSH_DELAYED_ITEMS_NR;
> commit_cycles--;
> } else {
>
