| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The DREW lock uses percpu variable to track lock counters and for that
it needs to allocate the structure. In btrfs_read_tree_root() or
btrfs_init_fs_root() this may add another error case or requires the
NOFS scope protection.
One way is to preallocate the structure as was suggested in
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20221214021125.28289-1-robbieko@synology.com/
We may avoid the allocation altogether if we don't use the percpu
variables but an atomic for the writer counter. This should not make any
difference, the DREW lock is used for truncate and NOCOW writes along
with other IO operations.
The percpu counter for writers has been there since the original commit
8257b2dc3c1a1057 "Btrfs: introduce btrfs_{start, end}_nocow_write() for
each subvolume". The reason could be to avoid hammering the same
cacheline from all the readers but then the writers do that anyway.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These more naturally fit in with the locking related code, and they're
all defines so they can easily go anywhere, move them out of ctree.h
into locking.h
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For NOWAIT IOCBs we'll need a way to tell search to not wait on locks
or anything. Accomplish this by adding a path->nowait flag that will
use trylocks and skip reading of metadata, returning -EAGAIN in either
of these cases. For now we only need this for reads, so only the read
side is handled. Add an ASSERT() to catch anybody trying to use this
for writes so they know they'll have to implement the write side.
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Stefan Roesch <shr@fb.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We have been hitting the following lockdep splat with btrfs/187 recently
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
5.19.0-rc8+ #775 Not tainted
------------------------------------------------------
btrfs/752500 is trying to acquire lock:
ffff97e1875a97b8 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
but task is already holding lock:
ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_init_new_buffer+0x7d/0x2c0
btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x120/0x3b0
__btrfs_cow_block+0x136/0x600
btrfs_cow_block+0x10b/0x230
btrfs_search_slot+0x53b/0xb70
btrfs_lookup_inode+0x2a/0xa0
__btrfs_update_delayed_inode+0x5f/0x280
btrfs_async_run_delayed_root+0x24c/0x290
btrfs_work_helper+0xf2/0x3e0
process_one_work+0x271/0x590
worker_thread+0x52/0x3b0
kthread+0xf0/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
-> #1 (btrfs-tree-01){++++}-{3:3}:
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_search_slot+0x3c3/0xb70
do_relocation+0x10c/0x6b0
relocate_tree_blocks+0x317/0x6d0
relocate_block_group+0x1f1/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
-> #0 (btrfs-treloc-02#2){+.+.}-{3:3}:
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
btrfs-treloc-02#2 --> btrfs-tree-01 --> btrfs-tree-01/1
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-tree-01);
lock(btrfs-tree-01/1);
lock(btrfs-treloc-02#2);
*** DEADLOCK ***
7 locks held by btrfs/752500:
#0: ffff97e292fdf460 (sb_writers#12){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_ioctl+0x208/0x2c90
#1: ffff97e284c02050 (&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_balance+0x55f/0xe40
#2: ffff97e284c00878 (&fs_info->cleaner_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x236/0x400
#3: ffff97e292fdf650 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: merge_reloc_root+0xef/0x610
#4: ffff97e284c02378 (btrfs_trans_num_writers){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#5: ffff97e284c023a0 (btrfs_trans_num_extwriters){++++}-{0:0}, at: join_transaction+0x1a8/0x5a0
#6: ffff97e1875a9278 (btrfs-tree-01/1){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
stack backtrace:
CPU: 1 PID: 752500 Comm: btrfs Not tainted 5.19.0-rc8+ #775
Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (Q35 + ICH9, 2009), BIOS 1.13.0-2.fc32 04/01/2014
Call Trace:
dump_stack_lvl+0x56/0x73
check_noncircular+0xd6/0x100
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
__lock_acquire+0x1122/0x1e10
lock_acquire+0xc2/0x2d0
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
down_write_nested+0x41/0x80
? __btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
__btrfs_tree_lock+0x24/0x110
btrfs_lock_root_node+0x31/0x50
btrfs_search_slot+0x1cb/0xb70
? lock_release+0x137/0x2d0
? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x50
? release_extent_buffer+0x128/0x180
replace_path+0x541/0x9f0
merge_reloc_root+0x1d6/0x610
merge_reloc_roots+0xe2/0x260
relocate_block_group+0x2c8/0x560
btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x23e/0x400
btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x4c/0x140
btrfs_balance+0x755/0xe40
btrfs_ioctl+0x1ea2/0x2c90
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? lock_is_held_type+0xe2/0x140
? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
__x64_sys_ioctl+0x88/0xc0
do_syscall_64+0x38/0x90
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
This isn't necessarily new, it's just tricky to hit in practice. There
are two competing things going on here. With relocation we create a
snapshot of every fs tree with a reloc tree. Any extent buffers that
get initialized here are initialized with the reloc root lockdep key.
However since it is a snapshot, any blocks that are currently in cache
that originally belonged to the fs tree will have the normal tree
lockdep key set. This creates the lock dependency of
reloc tree -> normal tree
for the extent buffer locking during the first phase of the relocation
as we walk down the reloc root to relocate blocks.
However this is problematic because the final phase of the relocation is
merging the reloc root into the original fs root. This involves
searching down to any keys that exist in the original fs root and then
swapping the relocated block and the original fs root block. We have to
search down to the fs root first, and then go search the reloc root for
the block we need to replace. This creates the dependency of
normal tree -> reloc tree
which is why lockdep complains.
Additionally even if we were to fix this particular mismatch with a
different nesting for the merge case, we're still slotting in a block
that has a owner of the reloc root objectid into a normal tree, so that
block will have its lockdep key set to the tree reloc root, and create a
lockdep splat later on when we wander into that block from the fs root.
Unfortunately the only solution here is to make sure we do not set the
lockdep key to the reloc tree lockdep key normally, and then reset any
blocks we wander into from the reloc root when we're doing the merged.
This solves the problem of having mixed tree reloc keys intermixed with
normal tree keys, and then allows us to make sure in the merge case we
maintain the lock order of
normal tree -> reloc tree
We handle this by setting a bit on the reloc root when we do the search
for the block we want to relocate, and any block we search into or COW
at that point gets set to the reloc tree key. This works correctly
because we only ever COW down to the parent node, so we aren't resetting
the key for the block we're linking into the fs root.
With this patch we no longer have the lockdep splat in btrfs/187.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
These definitions exist in disk-io.c, which is not related to the
locking. Move this over to locking.h/c where it makes more sense.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We currently use lockdep_assert_held() at btrfs_assert_tree_locked(), and
that checks that we hold a lock either in read mode or write mode.
However in all contexts we use btrfs_assert_tree_locked(), we actually
want to check if we are holding a write lock on the extent buffer's rw
semaphore - it would be a bug if in any of those contexts we were holding
a read lock instead.
So change btrfs_assert_tree_locked() to use lockdep_assert_held_write()
instead and, to make it more explicit, rename btrfs_assert_tree_locked()
to btrfs_assert_tree_write_locked(), so that it's clear we want to check
we are holding a write lock.
For now there are no contexts where we want to assert that we must have
a read lock, but in case that is needed in the future, we can add a new
helper function that just calls out lockdep_assert_held_read().
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It is completely unused now, remove it.
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We no longer have recursive locking and there's no need for separate
helpers that allowed the transition to rwsem with minimal code changes.
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Now that we're using a rw_semaphore we no longer need to indicate if a
lock is blocking or not, nor do we need to flip the entire path from
blocking to spinning. Remove these helpers and all the places they are
called.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Historically we've implemented our own locking because we wanted to be
able to selectively spin or sleep based on what we were doing in the
tree. For instance, if all of our nodes were in cache then there's
rarely a reason to need to sleep waiting for node locks, as they'll
likely become available soon. At the time this code was written the
rw_semaphore didn't do adaptive spinning, and thus was orders of
magnitude slower than our home grown locking.
However now the opposite is the case. There are a few problems with how
we implement blocking locks, namely that we use a normal waitqueue and
simply wake everybody up in reverse sleep order. This leads to some
suboptimal performance behavior, and a lot of context switches in highly
contended cases. The rw_semaphores actually do this properly, and also
have adaptive spinning that works relatively well.
The locking code is also a bit of a bear to understand, and we lose the
benefit of lockdep for the most part because the blocking states of the
lock are simply ad-hoc and not mapped into lockdep.
So rework the locking code to drop all of this custom locking stuff, and
simply use a rw_semaphore for everything. This makes the locking much
simpler for everything, as we can now drop a lot of cruft and blocking
transitions. The performance numbers vary depending on the workload,
because generally speaking there doesn't tend to be a lot of contention
on the btree. However, on my test system which is an 80 core single
socket system with 256GiB of RAM and a 2TiB NVMe drive I get the
following results (with all debug options off):
dbench 200 baseline
Throughput 216.056 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=1471.197 ms
dbench 200 with patch
Throughput 737.188 MB/sec 200 clients 200 procs max_latency=714.346 ms
Previously we also used fs_mark to test this sort of contention, and
those results are far less impressive, mostly because there's not enough
tasks to really stress the locking
fs_mark -d /d[0-15] -S 0 -L 20 -n 100000 -s 0 -t 16
baseline
Average Files/sec: 160166.7
p50 Files/sec: 165832
p90 Files/sec: 123886
p99 Files/sec: 123495
real 3m26.527s
user 2m19.223s
sys 48m21.856s
patched
Average Files/sec: 164135.7
p50 Files/sec: 171095
p90 Files/sec: 122889
p99 Files/sec: 113819
real 3m29.660s
user 2m19.990s
sys 44m12.259s
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The way we add new roots is confusing from a locking perspective for
lockdep. We generally have the rule that we lock things in order from
highest level to lowest, but in the case of adding a new level to the
tree we actually allocate a new block for the root, which makes the
locking go in reverse. A similar issue exists for snapshotting, we cow
the original root for the root of a new tree, however they're at the
same level. Address this by using BTRFS_NESTING_NEW_ROOT for these
operations.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If we are splitting a leaf/node, we could do something like the
following
lock(leaf) BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL
lock(left) BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT + BTRFS_NESTING_COW
push from leaf -> left
reset path to point to left
split left
allocate new block, lock block BTRFS_NESTING_SPLIT
at the new block point we need to have a different nesting level,
because we have already used either BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT or
BTRFS_NESTING_RIGHT when pushing items from the original leaf into the
adjacent leaves.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
For similar reasons as BTRFS_NESTING_COW, we need
BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT/RIGHT_COW. The pattern is this
lock leaf -> BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL
cow leaf -> BTRFS_NESTING_COW
split leaf
lock left -> BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT
cow left -> BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT_COW
We need this in order to indicate to lockdep that these locks are
discrete and are being taken in a safe order.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Our lockdep maps are based on rootid+level, however in some cases we
will lock adjacent blocks on the same level, namely in searching forward
or in split/balance. Because of this lockdep will complain, so we need
a separate subclass to indicate to lockdep that these are different
locks.
lock leaf -> BTRFS_NESTING_NORMAL
cow leaf -> BTRFS_NESTING_COW
split leaf
lock left -> BTRFS_NESTING_LEFT
lock right -> BTRFS_NESTING_RIGHT
The above graph illustrates the need for this new nesting subclass.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When we COW a block we are holding a lock on the original block, and
then we lock the new COW block. Because our lockdep maps are based on
root + level, this will make lockdep complain. We need a way to
indicate a subclass for locking the COW'ed block, so plumb through our
btrfs_lock_nesting from btrfs_cow_block down to the btrfs_init_buffer,
and then introduce BTRFS_NESTING_COW to be used for cow'ing blocks.
The reason I've added all this extra infrastructure is because there
will be need of different nesting classes in follow up patches.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We will need these when we switch to an rwsem, so plumb in the
infrastructure here to use later on. I violate the 80 character limit
some here because it'll be cleaned up later.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Our current tree locking stuff allows us to recurse with read locks if
we're already holding the write lock. This is necessary for the space
cache inode, as we could be holding a lock on the root_tree root when we
need to cache a block group, and thus need to be able to read down the
root_tree to read in the inode cache.
We can get away with this in our current locking, but we won't be able
to with a rwsem. Handle this by purposefully annotating the places
where we require recursion, so that in the future we can maybe come up
with a way to avoid the recursion. In the case of the free space inode,
this will be superseded by the free space tree.
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A (D)ouble (R)eader (W)riter (E)xclustion lock is a locking primitive
that allows to have multiple readers or multiple writers but not
multiple readers and writers holding it concurrently.
The code is factored out from the existing open-coded locking scheme
used to exclude pending snapshots from nocow writers and vice-versa.
Current implementation actually favors Readers (that is snapshot
creaters) to writers (nocow writers of the filesystem).
The API provides lock/unlock/trylock for reads and writes.
Formal specification for TLA+ provided by Valentin Schneider is at
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/2dcaf81c-f0d3-409e-cb29-733d8b3b4cc9@arm.com/
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The function belongs to the family of locking functions, so move it
there. The 'noinline' keyword is dropped as it's now an exported
function that does not need it.
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The function belongs to the family of locking functions, so move it
there. The 'noinline' keyword is dropped as it's now an exported
function that does not need it.
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The function btrfs_assert_tree_locked is used outside of the locking
code so it is exported, however we can make it static inine as it's
fairly trivial.
This is the only locking assertion used in release builds, inlining
improves the text size by 174 bytes and reduces stack consumption in the
callers.
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Those were split out of btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw by
aa12c02778a9 ("btrfs: split btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw to read and write helpers")
however at that time this function was unused due to commit
523983401644 ("Btrfs: kill btrfs_clear_path_blocking"). Put the final
nail in the coffin of those 2 functions.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The last caller that does not have a fixed value of lock is
btrfs_set_path_blocking, that actually does the same conditional swtich
by the lock type so we can merge the branches together and remove the
helper.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
btrfs_set_lock_blocking is now only a simple wrapper around
btrfs_set_lock_blocking_write. The name does not bring any semantic
value that could not be inferred from the new function so there's no
point keeping it.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
We can use the right helper where the lock type is a fixed parameter.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There are many callers that hardcode the desired lock type so we can
avoid the switch and call them directly. Split the current function to
two. There are no remaining users of btrfs_clear_lock_blocking_rw so
it's removed. The call sites will be converted in followup patches.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
There are many callers that hardcode the desired lock type so we can
avoid the switch and call them directly. Split the current function to
two but leave a helper that still takes the variable lock type to make
current code compile. The call sites will be converted in followup
patches.
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove GPL boilerplate text (long, short, one-line) and keep the rest,
ie. personal, company or original source copyright statements. Add the
SPDX header.
Unify the include protection macros to match the file names.
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The fair reader/writer locks mean that btrfs_clear_path_blocking needs
to strictly follow lock ordering rules even when we already have
blocking locks on a given path.
Before we can clear a blocking lock on the path, we need to make sure
all of the locks have been converted to blocking. This will remove lock
inversions against anyone spinning in write_lock() against the buffers
we're trying to get read locks on. These inversions didn't exist before
the fair read/writer locks, but now we need to be more careful.
We papered over this deadlock in the past by changing
btrfs_try_read_lock() to be a true trylock against both the spinlock and
the blocking lock. This was slower, and not sufficient to fix all the
deadlocks. This patch adds a btrfs_tree_read_lock_atomic(), which
basically means get the spinlock but trylock on the blocking lock.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Reported-by: Patrick Schmid <schmid@phys.ethz.ch>
cc: stable@vger.kernel.org #v3.15+
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove a useless function declaration
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
|
| |
|
|
| |
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The btrfs metadata btree is the source of significant
lock contention, especially in the root node. This
commit changes our locking to use a reader/writer
lock.
The lock is built on top of rw spinlocks, and it
extends the lock tracking to remember if we have a
read lock or a write lock when we go to blocking. Atomics
count the number of blocking readers or writers at any
given time.
It removes all of the adaptive spinning from the old code
and uses only the spinning/blocking hints inside of btrfs
to decide when it should continue spinning.
In read heavy workloads this is dramatically faster. In write
heavy workloads we're still faster because of less contention
on the root node lock.
We suffer slightly in dbench because we schedule more often
during write locks, but all other benchmarks so far are improved.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Remove static and global declarations and/or definitions. Reduces size
of btrfs.ko by ~3.4kB.
text data bss dec hex filename
402081 7464 200 409745 64091 btrfs.ko.base
398620 7144 200 405964 631cc btrfs.ko.remove-all
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
btrfs_tree_locked was being used to make sure a given extent_buffer was
properly locked in a few places. But, it wasn't correct for UP compiled
kernels.
This switches it to using assert_spin_locked instead, and renames it to
btrfs_assert_tree_locked to better reflect how it was really being used.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Btrfs was using spin_is_contended to see if it should drop locks before
doing extent allocations during btrfs_search_slot. The idea was to avoid
expensive searches in the tree unless the lock was actually contended.
But, spin_is_contended is specific to the ticket spinlocks on x86, so this
is causing compile errors everywhere else.
In practice, the contention could easily appear some time after we started
doing the extent allocation, and it makes more sense to always drop the lock
instead.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Most of the btrfs metadata operations can be protected by a spinlock,
but some operations still need to schedule.
So far, btrfs has been using a mutex along with a trylock loop,
most of the time it is able to avoid going for the full mutex, so
the trylock loop is a big performance gain.
This commit is step one for getting rid of the blocking locks entirely.
btrfs_tree_lock takes a spinlock, and the code explicitly switches
to a blocking lock when it starts an operation that can schedule.
We'll be able get rid of the blocking locks in smaller pieces over time.
Tracing allows us to find the most common cause of blocking, so we
can start with the hot spots first.
The basic idea is:
btrfs_tree_lock() returns with the spin lock held
btrfs_set_lock_blocking() sets the EXTENT_BUFFER_BLOCKING bit in
the extent buffer flags, and then drops the spin lock. The buffer is
still considered locked by all of the btrfs code.
If btrfs_tree_lock gets the spinlock but finds the blocking bit set, it drops
the spin lock and waits on a wait queue for the blocking bit to go away.
Much of the code that needs to set the blocking bit finishes without actually
blocking a good percentage of the time. So, an adaptive spin is still
used against the blocking bit to avoid very high context switch rates.
btrfs_clear_lock_blocking() clears the blocking bit and returns
with the spinlock held again.
btrfs_tree_unlock() can be called on either blocking or spinning locks,
it does the right thing based on the blocking bit.
ctree.c has a helper function to set/clear all the locked buffers in a
path as blocking.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
A btree block cow has two parts, the first is to allocate a destination
block and the second is to copy the old bock over.
The first part needs locks in the extent allocation tree, and may need to
do IO. This changeset splits that into a separate function that can be
called without any tree locks held.
btrfs_search_slot is changed to drop its path and start over if it has
to COW a contended block. This often means that many writers will
pre-alloc a new destination for a the same contended block, but they
cache their prealloc for later use on lower levels in the tree.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
|
|
|
The allocation trees and the chunk trees are serialized via their own
dedicated mutexes. This means allocation location is still not very
fine grained.
The main FS btree is protected by locks on each block in the btree. Locks
are taken top / down, and as processing finishes on a given level of the
tree, the lock is released after locking the lower level.
The end result of a search is now a path where only the lowest level
is locked. Releasing or freeing the path drops any locks held.
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>
|
