Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] btrfs: Balance progress monitoring

2011-04-13 Thread David Sterba 
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:42:07PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
There will be savings in the future, however -- when I add Li's
 suggestion for tracking the number of bytes (in the block groups as a
 whole, and in terms of useful data stored), plus the vaddr of the
 last-moved block group, the size of the btrfs_balance_info struct will
 go up from its current 8 bytes to 48. I've just not quite finished
 that patch yet, and wanted to get the rest of the patches settled
 while I work on the new one...

makes sense, no objections.

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

Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] btrfs: Balance progress monitoring

2011-04-12 Thread David Sterba 
Hi,

I've noticed that Arne's scrub patches add scrub variables directly
into the fs_info structure, while you have a separate struct.

I was wondering whether it would be better to put items of
btrfs_balance_info to fs_info too, balance state is a global info.

Although fs_info is a huge structure now, 9402 bytes on 86_64, there is
no space saving in this case.

On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:06:04PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
 diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
 index 7f78cc7..17c7ecc 100644
 --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
 +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
 @@ -865,6 +865,11 @@ struct btrfs_block_group_cache {
   struct list_head cluster_list;
  };
  
 +struct btrfs_balance_info {
 + u32 expected;
 + u32 completed;

two u32 make one u64

 +};
 +
  struct reloc_control;
  struct btrfs_device;
  struct btrfs_fs_devices;
 @@ -1078,6 +1083,10 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info {
  
   /* filesystem state */
   u64 fs_state;
 +
 + /* Keep track of any rebalance operations on this FS */
 + spinlock_t balance_info_lock;
 + struct btrfs_balance_info *balance_info;

a pointer is a u64 too

  };
  
  /*
 diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
 index dd13eb8..bb2ffed 100644
 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
 +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
 @@ -2051,6 +2052,20 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_root *dev_root)
   mutex_lock(dev_root-fs_info-volume_mutex);
   dev_root = dev_root-fs_info-dev_root;
  
 + bal_info = kmalloc(
 + sizeof(struct btrfs_balance_info),
 + GFP_NOFS);

... drop

 + if (!bal_info) {
 + ret = -ENOMEM;
 + goto error_no_status;
 + }
 + spin_lock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
 + dev_root-fs_info-balance_info = bal_info;
 + bal_info-expected = -1; /* One less than actually counted,
 + because chunk 0 is special */
 + bal_info-completed = 0;
 + spin_unlock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
 +
   /* step one make some room on all the devices */
   list_for_each_entry(device, devices, dev_list) {
   old_size = device-total_bytes;
 @@ -2115,10 +2157,20 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_root *dev_root)
  found_key.offset);
   BUG_ON(ret  ret != -ENOSPC);
   key.offset = found_key.offset - 1;
 + spin_lock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
 + bal_info-completed++;
 + spin_unlock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
 + printk(KERN_INFO btrfs: balance: %llu/%llu block groups 
 completed\n,
 +bal_info-completed, bal_info-expected);
   }
   ret = 0;
  error:
   btrfs_free_path(path);
 + spin_lock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
 + kfree(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info);

... drop

 + dev_root-fs_info-balance_info = NULL;
 + spin_unlock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
 +error_no_status:
   mutex_unlock(dev_root-fs_info-volume_mutex);
   return ret;
  }
 -- 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] btrfs: Balance progress monitoring

2011-04-12 Thread Hugo Mills 
On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 07:12:32PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
 Hi,
 
 I've noticed that Arne's scrub patches add scrub variables directly
 into the fs_info structure, while you have a separate struct.

   Chris (I think -- might have been Josef) suggested the use of a
struct, back when I was first writing this code.

 I was wondering whether it would be better to put items of
 btrfs_balance_info to fs_info too, balance state is a global info.
 
 Although fs_info is a huge structure now, 9402 bytes on 86_64, there is
 no space saving in this case.

   There will be savings in the future, however -- when I add Li's
suggestion for tracking the number of bytes (in the block groups as a
whole, and in terms of useful data stored), plus the vaddr of the
last-moved block group, the size of the btrfs_balance_info struct will
go up from its current 8 bytes to 48. I've just not quite finished
that patch yet, and wanted to get the rest of the patches settled
while I work on the new one...

   Hugo.

 On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 10:06:04PM +0100, Hugo Mills wrote:
  diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
  index 7f78cc7..17c7ecc 100644
  --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
  +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
  @@ -865,6 +865,11 @@ struct btrfs_block_group_cache {
  struct list_head cluster_list;
   };
   
  +struct btrfs_balance_info {
  +   u32 expected;
  +   u32 completed;
 
 two u32 make one u64
 
  +};
  +
   struct reloc_control;
   struct btrfs_device;
   struct btrfs_fs_devices;
  @@ -1078,6 +1083,10 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info {
   
  /* filesystem state */
  u64 fs_state;
  +
  +   /* Keep track of any rebalance operations on this FS */
  +   spinlock_t balance_info_lock;
  +   struct btrfs_balance_info *balance_info;
 
 a pointer is a u64 too
 
   };
   
   /*
  diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
  index dd13eb8..bb2ffed 100644
  --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
  +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
  @@ -2051,6 +2052,20 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_root *dev_root)
  mutex_lock(dev_root-fs_info-volume_mutex);
  dev_root = dev_root-fs_info-dev_root;
   
  +   bal_info = kmalloc(
  +   sizeof(struct btrfs_balance_info),
  +   GFP_NOFS);
 
 ... drop
 
  +   if (!bal_info) {
  +   ret = -ENOMEM;
  +   goto error_no_status;
  +   }
  +   spin_lock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
  +   dev_root-fs_info-balance_info = bal_info;
  +   bal_info-expected = -1; /* One less than actually counted,
  +   because chunk 0 is special */
  +   bal_info-completed = 0;
  +   spin_unlock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
  +
  /* step one make some room on all the devices */
  list_for_each_entry(device, devices, dev_list) {
  old_size = device-total_bytes;
  @@ -2115,10 +2157,20 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_root *dev_root)
 found_key.offset);
  BUG_ON(ret  ret != -ENOSPC);
  key.offset = found_key.offset - 1;
  +   spin_lock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
  +   bal_info-completed++;
  +   spin_unlock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
  +   printk(KERN_INFO btrfs: balance: %llu/%llu block groups 
  completed\n,
  +  bal_info-completed, bal_info-expected);
  }
  ret = 0;
   error:
  btrfs_free_path(path);
  +   spin_lock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
  +   kfree(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info);
 
 ... drop
 
  +   dev_root-fs_info-balance_info = NULL;
  +   spin_unlock(dev_root-fs_info-balance_info_lock);
  +error_no_status:
  mutex_unlock(dev_root-fs_info-volume_mutex);
  return ret;
   }

-- 
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
  PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
   --- Never underestimate the bandwidth of a Volvo filled ---   
   with backup tapes.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] btrfs: Balance progress monitoring

2011-04-11 Thread Hugo Mills 
On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 07:34:00AM +0200, Helmut Hullen wrote:
 Hallo, Hugo,
 
 Du meintest am 10.04.11:
 
  This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance
  operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The
  information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl.
 
 Just for curiosity:
 
 If I remember correct then btrfs device delete shows growing and  
 shrinking numbers, resp. on the remaining and on the deleting  
 partition(s).
 
 Can this patch show the remaining number of block groups too?

   This patch doesn't touch the code in device delete, but once this
patch series is finished and accepted, I'll take a look. We can
probably share a good chunk of the code between the two.

   Hugo.

-- 
=== Hugo Mills: hugo@... carfax.org.uk | darksatanic.net | lug.org.uk ===
  PGP key: 515C238D from wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net or http://www.carfax.org.uk
   --- How deep will this sub go? Oh,  she'll go all the way to ---   
the bottom if we don't stop her.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

[PATCH v5 1/8] btrfs: Balance progress monitoring

2011-04-10 Thread Hugo Mills 
This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance
operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The
information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl.

Signed-off-by: Hugo Mills h...@carfax.org.uk
---
 fs/btrfs/ctree.h   |9 
 fs/btrfs/disk-io.c |2 +
 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c   |   34 +++
 fs/btrfs/ioctl.h   |7 ++
 fs/btrfs/volumes.c |   56 ++-
 5 files changed, 106 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
index 7f78cc7..17c7ecc 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
@@ -865,6 +865,11 @@ struct btrfs_block_group_cache {
struct list_head cluster_list;
 };
 
+struct btrfs_balance_info {
+   u32 expected;
+   u32 completed;
+};
+
 struct reloc_control;
 struct btrfs_device;
 struct btrfs_fs_devices;
@@ -1078,6 +1083,10 @@ struct btrfs_fs_info {
 
/* filesystem state */
u64 fs_state;
+
+   /* Keep track of any rebalance operations on this FS */
+   spinlock_t balance_info_lock;
+   struct btrfs_balance_info *balance_info;
 };
 
 /*
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
index 100b07f..3d690de 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
@@ -1645,6 +1645,7 @@ struct btrfs_root *open_ctree(struct super_block *sb,
spin_lock_init(fs_info-ref_cache_lock);
spin_lock_init(fs_info-fs_roots_radix_lock);
spin_lock_init(fs_info-delayed_iput_lock);
+   spin_lock_init(fs_info-balance_info_lock);
 
init_completion(fs_info-kobj_unregister);
fs_info-tree_root = tree_root;
@@ -1670,6 +1671,7 @@ struct btrfs_root *open_ctree(struct super_block *sb,
fs_info-sb = sb;
fs_info-max_inline = 8192 * 1024;
fs_info-metadata_ratio = 0;
+   fs_info-balance_info = NULL;
 
fs_info-thread_pool_size = min_t(unsigned long,
  num_online_cpus() + 2, 8);
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index 5fdb2ab..a8fbb07 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
@@ -2375,6 +2375,38 @@ static noinline long btrfs_ioctl_wait_sync(struct file 
*file, void __user *argp)
return btrfs_wait_for_commit(root, transid);
 }
 
+/*
+ * Return the current status of any balance operation
+ */
+long btrfs_ioctl_balance_progress(
+   struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+   struct btrfs_ioctl_balance_progress __user *user_dest)
+{
+   int ret = 0;
+   struct btrfs_ioctl_balance_progress dest;
+
+   spin_lock(fs_info-balance_info_lock);
+   if (!fs_info-balance_info) {
+   ret = -EINVAL;
+   goto error;
+   }
+
+   dest.expected = fs_info-balance_info-expected;
+   dest.completed = fs_info-balance_info-completed;
+
+   spin_unlock(fs_info-balance_info_lock);
+
+   if (copy_to_user(user_dest, dest,
+sizeof(struct btrfs_ioctl_balance_progress)))
+   return -EFAULT;
+
+   return 0;
+
+error:
+   spin_unlock(fs_info-balance_info_lock);
+   return ret;
+}
+
 long btrfs_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int
cmd, unsigned long arg)
 {
@@ -2414,6 +2446,8 @@ long btrfs_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int
return btrfs_ioctl_rm_dev(root, argp);
case BTRFS_IOC_BALANCE:
return btrfs_balance(root-fs_info-dev_root);
+   case BTRFS_IOC_BALANCE_PROGRESS:
+   return btrfs_ioctl_balance_progress(root-fs_info, argp);
case BTRFS_IOC_CLONE:
return btrfs_ioctl_clone(file, arg, 0, 0, 0);
case BTRFS_IOC_CLONE_RANGE:
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.h b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.h
index 8fb3821..7c37c6b 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.h
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.h
@@ -157,6 +157,11 @@ struct btrfs_ioctl_space_args {
struct btrfs_ioctl_space_info spaces[0];
 };
 
+struct btrfs_ioctl_balance_progress {
+   __u32 expected;
+   __u32 completed;
+};
+
 #define BTRFS_IOC_SNAP_CREATE _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 1, \
   struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args)
 #define BTRFS_IOC_DEFRAG _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 2, \
@@ -203,4 +208,6 @@ struct btrfs_ioctl_space_args {
   struct btrfs_ioctl_vol_args_v2)
 #define BTRFS_IOC_SUBVOL_GETFLAGS _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 25, __u64)
 #define BTRFS_IOC_SUBVOL_SETFLAGS _IOW(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 26, __u64)
+#define BTRFS_IOC_BALANCE_PROGRESS _IOR(BTRFS_IOCTL_MAGIC, 27, \
+ struct btrfs_ioctl_balance_progress)
 #endif
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index dd13eb8..bb2ffed 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -2041,6 +2041,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_root *dev_root)
struct btrfs_root *chunk_root = dev_root-fs_info-chunk_root;
struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
struct btrfs_key found_key;
+   struct btrfs_balance_info

Re: [PATCH v5 1/8] btrfs: Balance progress monitoring

2011-04-10 Thread Helmut Hullen 
Hallo, Hugo,

Du meintest am 10.04.11:

 This patch introduces a basic form of progress monitoring for balance
 operations, by counting the number of block groups remaining. The
 information is exposed to userspace by an ioctl.

Just for curiosity:

If I remember correct then btrfs device delete shows growing and  
shrinking numbers, resp. on the remaining and on the deleting  
partition(s).

Can this patch show the remaining number of block groups too?

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