On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 10:10:24AM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 04/20/2018 12:33 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > Currently fs_info::balance_running is 0 or 1 and does not use the
> > semantics of atomics. The pause and cancel check for 0, that can happen
> > only after __btrfs_balance exits for
On 04/20/2018 12:33 AM, David Sterba wrote:
Currently fs_info::balance_running is 0 or 1 and does not use the
semantics of atomics. The pause and cancel check for 0, that can happen
only after __btrfs_balance exits for whatever reason.
Parallel calls to balance ioctl may enter
Ok not that simple, the running status is checked outside of
balance_mutex and there's one more assertion that does not expect the
balance_ctl to exist:
@@ -4031,16 +4032,16 @@ int btrfs_pause_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
return -ENOTCONN;
}
-
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 01:58:11PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 03:52:24PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 04/20/2018 12:33 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > > Currently fs_info::balance_running is 0 or 1 and does not use the
> > > semantics of atomics. The pause and
On Fri, Apr 20, 2018 at 03:52:24PM +0800, Anand Jain wrote:
>
>
> On 04/20/2018 12:33 AM, David Sterba wrote:
> > Currently fs_info::balance_running is 0 or 1 and does not use the
> > semantics of atomics. The pause and cancel check for 0, that can happen
> > only after __btrfs_balance exits for
On 04/20/2018 12:33 AM, David Sterba wrote:
Currently fs_info::balance_running is 0 or 1 and does not use the
semantics of atomics. The pause and cancel check for 0, that can happen
only after __btrfs_balance exits for whatever reason.
Parallel calls to balance ioctl may enter
Currently fs_info::balance_running is 0 or 1 and does not use the
semantics of atomics. The pause and cancel check for 0, that can happen
only after __btrfs_balance exits for whatever reason.
Parallel calls to balance ioctl may enter btrfs_ioctl_balance multiple
times but will block on the
