On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 05:44:41PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 02:53:48PM -0500, Dennis Zhou wrote:
> > The timer function, zstd_reclaim_timer_fn(), reschedules itself under
> > certain conditions. When cleaning up, take the lock and remove all
> > workspaces. This prevents the timer from rearming itself. Lastly, switch
> > to del_timer_sync() to ensure that the timer function can't trigger as
> > we're unloading.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Dennis Zhou <den...@kernel.org>
>
> Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dste...@suse.com>
>
Thanks!
> > ---
> > v2:
> > - cleanup workspaces and then disable the timer
> >
> > fs/btrfs/zstd.c | 6 ++++--
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/zstd.c b/fs/btrfs/zstd.c
> > index 3e418a3aeb11..6b9e29d050f3 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/zstd.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/zstd.c
> > @@ -195,8 +195,7 @@ static void zstd_cleanup_workspace_manager(void)
> > struct workspace *workspace;
> > int i;
> >
> > - del_timer(&wsm.timer);
> > -
> > + spin_lock(&wsm.lock);
> > for (i = 0; i < ZSTD_BTRFS_MAX_LEVEL; i++) {
> > while (!list_empty(&wsm.idle_ws[i])) {
> > workspace = container_of(wsm.idle_ws[i].next,
> > @@ -206,6 +205,9 @@ static void zstd_cleanup_workspace_manager(void)
> > wsm.ops->free_workspace(&workspace->list);
>
> I've noticed while reading the code, why do you use the indirect call
> here? The wsm.ops points to btrfs_zstd_compress so free_workspace is
> always zstd_free_workspace.
>
> The compiler is usually smart to replace such things by direct call if
> the type has not escaped, but this is not true for btrfs_compress_op so
> the indirect function call must be preserved.
I don't have a strong reason to use the indirect call here. It was just
to make it consistent for everyone to use the indirection. This at least
is in the cleanup path, so I don't think performance is that important?
But I don't feel strongly for or against calling zstd_free_workspace()
directly.
Thanks,
Dennis
