[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250714130327.1830534-11-libaokun1@huawei.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2025 21:03:20 +0800
From: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
To: <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
CC: <tytso@....edu>, <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>, <jack@...e.cz>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>,
<julia.lawall@...ia.fr>, <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, <yangerkun@...wei.com>,
<libaokun1@...wei.com>, <libaokun@...weicloud.com>, <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v3 10/17] ext4: fix zombie groups in average fragment size lists
Groups with no free blocks shouldn't be in any average fragment size list.
However, when all blocks in a group are allocated(i.e., bb_fragments or
bb_free is 0), we currently skip updating the average fragment size, which
means the group isn't removed from its previous s_mb_avg_fragment_size[old]
list.
This created "zombie" groups that were always skipped during traversal as
they couldn't satisfy any block allocation requests, negatively impacting
traversal efficiency.
Therefore, when a group becomes completely full, bb_avg_fragment_size_order
is now set to -1. If the old order was not -1, a removal operation is
performed; if the new order is not -1, an insertion is performed.
Fixes: 196e402adf2e ("ext4: improve cr 0 / cr 1 group scanning")
CC: stable@...r.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index 6d98f2a5afc4..72b20fc52bbf 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -841,30 +841,30 @@ static void
mb_update_avg_fragment_size(struct super_block *sb, struct ext4_group_info *grp)
{
struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
- int new_order;
+ int new, old;
- if (!test_opt2(sb, MB_OPTIMIZE_SCAN) || grp->bb_fragments == 0)
+ if (!test_opt2(sb, MB_OPTIMIZE_SCAN))
return;
- new_order = mb_avg_fragment_size_order(sb,
- grp->bb_free / grp->bb_fragments);
- if (new_order == grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order)
+ old = grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order;
+ new = grp->bb_fragments == 0 ? -1 :
+ mb_avg_fragment_size_order(sb, grp->bb_free / grp->bb_fragments);
+ if (new == old)
return;
- if (grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order != -1) {
- write_lock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[
- grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]);
+ if (old >= 0) {
+ write_lock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[old]);
list_del(&grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_node);
- write_unlock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[
- grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]);
- }
- grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order = new_order;
- write_lock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[
- grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]);
- list_add_tail(&grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_node,
- &sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size[grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]);
- write_unlock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[
- grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order]);
+ write_unlock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[old]);
+ }
+
+ grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_order = new;
+ if (new >= 0) {
+ write_lock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[new]);
+ list_add_tail(&grp->bb_avg_fragment_size_node,
+ &sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size[new]);
+ write_unlock(&sbi->s_mb_avg_fragment_size_locks[new]);
+ }
}
/*
--
2.46.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists