| Message ID | 1348555713-7518-1-git-send-email-bo.li.liu@oracle.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:48:33PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c > @@ -1158,17 +1158,20 @@ static void btrfs_resize_thread_pool(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > printk(KERN_INFO "btrfs: resize thread pool %d -> %d\n", > old_pool_size, new_pool_size); > > - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, new_pool_size); > + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, min(1, new_pool_size)); How could new_pool_size be < 1 ? There's a check in super.c to pick only values > 0 > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->workers, new_pool_size); > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->delalloc_workers, new_pool_size); > - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, new_pool_size); > - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, new_pool_size); > - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, new_pool_size); > + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, > + min_t(u64, fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices, > + new_pool_size)); This ask for update also when a new device is added/removed. > + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, min(2, new_pool_size)); > + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, min(1, new_pool_size)); Same as above, is it expected to be < 1 ? > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_workers, new_pool_size); > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_workers, new_pool_size); > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_write_workers, new_pool_size); > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_write_workers, new_pool_size); > - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_freespace_worker, new_pool_size); > + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_freespace_worker, > + min(1, new_pool_size)); Not sure, do we actually need more than 1 free space worker? > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->delayed_workers, new_pool_size); > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->readahead_workers, new_pool_size); > btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->scrub_workers, new_pool_size); -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 09/25/2012 07:39 PM, David Sterba wrote: > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:48:33PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: >> --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c >> @@ -1158,17 +1158,20 @@ static void btrfs_resize_thread_pool(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, >> printk(KERN_INFO "btrfs: resize thread pool %d -> %d\n", >> old_pool_size, new_pool_size); >> >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, new_pool_size); >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, min(1, new_pool_size)); > > How could new_pool_size be < 1 ? > > There's a check in super.c to pick only values > 0 > I think we just need only 1 generic_worker >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->workers, new_pool_size); >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->delalloc_workers, new_pool_size); >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, new_pool_size); >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, new_pool_size); >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, new_pool_size); >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, >> + min_t(u64, fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices, >> + new_pool_size)); > > This ask for update also when a new device is added/removed. > Oh, yes, but we should do it in another new patch instead. >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, min(2, new_pool_size)); >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, min(1, new_pool_size)); > > Same as above, is it expected to be < 1 ? > >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_workers, new_pool_size); >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_workers, new_pool_size); >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_write_workers, new_pool_size); >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_write_workers, new_pool_size); >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_freespace_worker, new_pool_size); >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_freespace_worker, >> + min(1, new_pool_size)); > > Not sure, do we actually need more than 1 free space worker? > Same as generic_worker and fixup_workers, I think only one is enough, that' why I make the minimum limitation, or we can set it as 1 directly. thanks, liubo >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->delayed_workers, new_pool_size); >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->readahead_workers, new_pool_size); >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->scrub_workers, new_pool_size); > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 08:07:00PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > On 09/25/2012 07:39 PM, David Sterba wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 02:48:33PM +0800, Liu Bo wrote: > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c > >> @@ -1158,17 +1158,20 @@ static void btrfs_resize_thread_pool(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, > >> printk(KERN_INFO "btrfs: resize thread pool %d -> %d\n", > >> old_pool_size, new_pool_size); > >> > >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, new_pool_size); > >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, min(1, new_pool_size)); > > > > How could new_pool_size be < 1 ? > > > > There's a check in super.c to pick only values > 0 > > I think we just need only 1 generic_worker I got it reversed, sorry for the noise. > >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->workers, new_pool_size); > >> btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->delalloc_workers, new_pool_size); > >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, new_pool_size); > >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, new_pool_size); > >> - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, new_pool_size); > >> + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, > >> + min_t(u64, fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices, > >> + new_pool_size)); > > > > This ask for update also when a new device is added/removed. > > > > Oh, yes, but we should do it in another new patch instead. Yes, this was just a hint to pair the remount/thread_pool capabilities. david -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/super.c b/fs/btrfs/super.c index 83d6f9f..a58e834 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/super.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/super.c @@ -1158,17 +1158,20 @@ static void btrfs_resize_thread_pool(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, printk(KERN_INFO "btrfs: resize thread pool %d -> %d\n", old_pool_size, new_pool_size); - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, new_pool_size); + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, min(1, new_pool_size)); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->workers, new_pool_size); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->delalloc_workers, new_pool_size); - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, new_pool_size); - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, new_pool_size); - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, new_pool_size); + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, + min_t(u64, fs_info->fs_devices->num_devices, + new_pool_size)); + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, min(2, new_pool_size)); + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, min(1, new_pool_size)); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_workers, new_pool_size); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_workers, new_pool_size); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_write_workers, new_pool_size); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_write_workers, new_pool_size); - btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_freespace_worker, new_pool_size); + btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->endio_freespace_worker, + min(1, new_pool_size)); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->delayed_workers, new_pool_size); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->readahead_workers, new_pool_size); btrfs_set_max_workers(&fs_info->scrub_workers, new_pool_size);
For some asynchronous threads, such as submit worker and cache worker, we limit their thread pool size when mounting. So we also need to do such things when remounting. Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> --- fs/btrfs/super.c | 13 ++++++++----- 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)