From 0dc3b84a73267f47a75468f924f5d58a840e3152 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Josef Bacik Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 14:37:27 -0500 Subject: Btrfs: fix num_workers_starting bug and other bugs in async thread Al pointed out we have some random problems with the way we account for num_workers_starting in the async thread stuff. First of all we need to make sure to decrement num_workers_starting if we fail to start the worker, so make __btrfs_start_workers do this. Also fix __btrfs_start_workers so that it doesn't call btrfs_stop_workers(), there is no point in stopping everybody if we failed to create a worker. Also check_pending_worker_creates needs to call __btrfs_start_work in it's work function since it already increments num_workers_starting. People only start one worker at a time, so get rid of the num_workers argument everywhere, and make btrfs_queue_worker a void since it will always succeed. Thanks, Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik --- fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 34 +++++++++++++++++++++------------- 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/btrfs/disk-io.c') diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c index 94abc25392f6..3f9d5551e582 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c @@ -2194,19 +2194,27 @@ struct btrfs_root *open_ctree(struct super_block *sb, fs_info->endio_meta_write_workers.idle_thresh = 2; fs_info->readahead_workers.idle_thresh = 2; - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->delalloc_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_write_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_write_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_freespace_worker, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->delayed_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers, 1); - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->readahead_workers, 1); + /* + * btrfs_start_workers can really only fail because of ENOMEM so just + * return -ENOMEM if any of these fail. + */ + ret = btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->generic_worker); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->submit_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->delalloc_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->fixup_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_meta_write_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_write_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->endio_freespace_worker); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->delayed_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->caching_workers); + ret |= btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->readahead_workers); + if (ret) { + ret = -ENOMEM; + goto fail_sb_buffer; + } fs_info->bdi.ra_pages *= btrfs_super_num_devices(disk_super); fs_info->bdi.ra_pages = max(fs_info->bdi.ra_pages, -- cgit v1.2.3