Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 09:37:43 -0400
From:   Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To:     Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com>
Cc:     Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
        "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
        David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>, Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>,
        Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.com>,
        "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>,
        Matias =?utf-8?B?QmrDuHJsaW5n?= <mb@lightnvm.io>,
        Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>,
        Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@acm.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/19] btrfs: do sequential extent allocation in HMZONED
 mode
Message-ID: <20190618133741.62tcifdq5hth4xuj@MacBook-Pro-91.local>
References: <20190607131025.31996-1-naohiro.aota@wdc.com>
 <20190607131025.31996-8-naohiro.aota@wdc.com>
 <20190613140722.lt6mvxnddnjg5lvx@MacBook-Pro-91.local>
 <SN6PR04MB5231A70D08002CA9181D9E468CEA0@SN6PR04MB5231.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR04MB5231A70D08002CA9181D9E468CEA0@SN6PR04MB5231.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20180716
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 08:28:07AM +0000, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> On 2019/06/13 23:07, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 10:10:13PM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote:
> >> @@ -9616,7 +9701,8 @@ static int inc_block_group_ro(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache, int force)
> >>   	}
> >>   
> >>   	num_bytes = cache->key.offset - cache->reserved - cache->pinned -
> >> -		    cache->bytes_super - btrfs_block_group_used(&cache->item);
> >> +		    cache->bytes_super - cache->unusable -
> >> +		    btrfs_block_group_used(&cache->item);
> >>   	sinfo_used = btrfs_space_info_used(sinfo, true);
> >>   
> >>   	if (sinfo_used + num_bytes + min_allocable_bytes <=
> >> @@ -9766,6 +9852,7 @@ void btrfs_dec_block_group_ro(struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache)
> >>   	if (!--cache->ro) {
> >>   		num_bytes = cache->key.offset - cache->reserved -
> >>   			    cache->pinned - cache->bytes_super -
> >> +			    cache->unusable -
> >>   			    btrfs_block_group_used(&cache->item);
> > 
> > You've done this in a few places, but not all the places, most notably
> > btrfs_space_info_used() which is used in the space reservation code a lot.
> 
> I added "unsable" to struct btrfs_block_group_cache, but added
> nothing to struct btrfs_space_info. Once extent is allocated and
> freed in an ALLOC_SEQ Block Group, such extent is never resued
> until we remove the BG. I'm accounting the size of such region
> in "cache->unusable" and in "space_info->bytes_readonly". So,
> btrfs_space_info_used() does not need the modify.
> 
> I admit it's confusing here. I can add "bytes_zone_unusable" to
> struct btrfs_space_info, if it's better.
> 

Ah you're right, sorry I just read it as space_info.  Yes please add
bytes_zone_unusable, I'd like to be as verbose as possible about where our space
actually is.  I know if I go to debug something and see a huge amount in
read_only I'll be confused.  Thanks,

Josef