@@ -953,8 +953,11 @@ struct reada_control *btrfs_reada_add(struct btrfs_root *root,
int btrfs_reada_wait(void *handle)
{
struct reada_control *rc = handle;
+ struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = rc->root->fs_info;
while (atomic_read(&rc->elems)) {
+ if (!atomic_read(&fs_info->reada_works_cnt))
+ reada_start_machine(fs_info);
wait_event_timeout(rc->wait, atomic_read(&rc->elems) == 0,
5 * HZ);
dump_devs(rc->root->fs_info,
@@ -971,9 +974,13 @@ int btrfs_reada_wait(void *handle)
int btrfs_reada_wait(void *handle)
{
struct reada_control *rc = handle;
+ struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = rc->root->fs_info;
while (atomic_read(&rc->elems)) {
- wait_event(rc->wait, atomic_read(&rc->elems) == 0);
+ if (!atomic_read(&fs_info->reada_works_cnt))
+ reada_start_machine(fs_info);
+ wait_event_timeout(rc->wait, atomic_read(&rc->elems) == 0,
+ (HZ + 9) / 10);
}
kref_put(&rc->refcnt, reada_control_release);
reada background works is not designed to finish all jobs completely, it will break in following case: 1: When a device reachs workload limit(MAX_IN_FLIGHT) 2: Total reads reachs max limit(10000) 3: All devices haven't queue more jobs, often happened in DUP case And if all background works exit with remain jobs, btrfs_reada_wait() will enter into infinite wait. Above problem is rarely happened in old code, because: 1: Every works queues 2x new works So many works reduced odds of undone jobs. 2: One work will continue 10000 times loop in case of no-jobs It reduced no-thread window time. But after we fixed above case, the "undone reada extents" frequently happened. Fix: Check to ensure we have at least one thread if there are undone jobs in btrfs_reada_wait(). Changelog v1->v2: 1: RFC->PATCH 2: Some cleanup and wait_time adjust. Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com> --- fs/btrfs/reada.c | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)