From a5f6f719a5cd7caeee8ed8137cf3f94c3bbebc65 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Alexandre Oliva Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 04:48:19 -0200 Subject: [PATCH] Btrfs: test free space only for unclustered allocation Since the clustered allocation may be taking extents from a different block group, there's no point in spin-locking and testing the current block group free space before attempting to allocate space from a cluster, even more so when we might refrain from even trying the cluster in the current block group because, after the cluster was set up, not enough free space remained. Furthermore, cluster creation attempts fail fast when the block group doesn't have enough free space, so the test was completely superfluous. I've move the free space test past the cluster allocation attempt, where it is more useful, and arranged for a cluster in the current block group to be released before trying an unclustered allocation, when we reach the LOOP_NO_EMPTY_SIZE stage, so that the free space in the cluster stands a chance of being combined with additional free space in the block group so as to succeed in the allocation attempt. Signed-off-by: Alexandre Oliva Signed-off-by: Chris Mason --- fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c index 247d2c94f8ec..5ea3acc53241 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c @@ -5286,15 +5286,6 @@ static noinline int find_free_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, if (unlikely(block_group->ro)) goto loop; - spin_lock(&block_group->free_space_ctl->tree_lock); - if (cached && - block_group->free_space_ctl->free_space < - num_bytes + empty_cluster + empty_size) { - spin_unlock(&block_group->free_space_ctl->tree_lock); - goto loop; - } - spin_unlock(&block_group->free_space_ctl->tree_lock); - /* * Ok we want to try and use the cluster allocator, so * lets look there @@ -5340,8 +5331,15 @@ static noinline int find_free_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, * plenty of times and not have found * anything, so we are likely way too * fragmented for the clustering stuff to find - * anything. */ - if (loop >= LOOP_NO_EMPTY_SIZE) { + * anything. + * + * However, if the cluster is taken from the + * current block group, release the cluster + * first, so that we stand a better chance of + * succeeding in the unclustered + * allocation. */ + if (loop >= LOOP_NO_EMPTY_SIZE && + last_ptr->block_group != block_group) { spin_unlock(&last_ptr->refill_lock); goto unclustered_alloc; } @@ -5352,6 +5350,11 @@ static noinline int find_free_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, */ btrfs_return_cluster_to_free_space(NULL, last_ptr); + if (loop >= LOOP_NO_EMPTY_SIZE) { + spin_unlock(&last_ptr->refill_lock); + goto unclustered_alloc; + } + /* allocate a cluster in this block group */ ret = btrfs_find_space_cluster(trans, root, block_group, last_ptr, @@ -5392,6 +5395,15 @@ static noinline int find_free_extent(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, } unclustered_alloc: + spin_lock(&block_group->free_space_ctl->tree_lock); + if (cached && + block_group->free_space_ctl->free_space < + num_bytes + empty_cluster + empty_size) { + spin_unlock(&block_group->free_space_ctl->tree_lock); + goto loop; + } + spin_unlock(&block_group->free_space_ctl->tree_lock); + offset = btrfs_find_space_for_alloc(block_group, search_start, num_bytes, empty_size); /*