From: Coly Li <col...@suse.de>
[ Upstream commit 41508bb7d46b74dba631017e5a702a86caf1db8c ]
When accessing or modifying BTREE_NODE_dirty bit, it is not always
necessary to acquire b->write_lock. In bch_btree_cache_free() and
mca_reap() acquiring b->write_lock is necessary, and this patch adds
comments to explain why mutex_lock(&b->write_lock) is necessary for
checking or clearing BTREE_NODE_dirty bit there.
Signed-off-by: Coly Li <col...@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <ax...@kernel.dk>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sas...@kernel.org>
---
drivers/md/bcache/btree.c | 10 ++++++++++
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c b/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
index 8c80833e73a9a..e0468fd41b6ea 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/btree.c
@@ -649,6 +649,11 @@ static int mca_reap(struct btree *b, unsigned int
min_order, bool flush)
up(&b->io_mutex);
}
+ /*
+ * BTREE_NODE_dirty might be cleared in btree_flush_btree() by
+ * __bch_btree_node_write(). To avoid an extra flush, acquire
+ * b->write_lock before checking BTREE_NODE_dirty bit.
+ */
mutex_lock(&b->write_lock);
if (btree_node_dirty(b))
__bch_btree_node_write(b, &cl);
@@ -772,6 +777,11 @@ void bch_btree_cache_free(struct cache_set *c)
while (!list_empty(&c->btree_cache)) {
b = list_first_entry(&c->btree_cache, struct btree, list);
+ /*
+ * This function is called by cache_set_free(), no I/O
+ * request on cache now, it is unnecessary to acquire
+ * b->write_lock before clearing BTREE_NODE_dirty anymore.
+ */
if (btree_node_dirty(b)) {
btree_complete_write(b, btree_current_write(b));
clear_bit(BTREE_NODE_dirty, &b->flags);
--
2.20.1
