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/scrub.c | 8 ++++++-- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) (limited to 'fs/btrfs/scrub.c') diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c index c27bcb67f330..ddf2c90d3fc0 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c @@ -1535,18 +1535,22 @@ static noinline_for_stack int scrub_supers(struct scrub_dev *sdev) static noinline_for_stack int scrub_workers_get(struct btrfs_root *root) { struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = root->fs_info; + int ret = 0; mutex_lock(&fs_info->scrub_lock); if (fs_info->scrub_workers_refcnt == 0) { btrfs_init_workers(&fs_info->scrub_workers, "scrub", fs_info->thread_pool_size, &fs_info->generic_worker); fs_info->scrub_workers.idle_thresh = 4; - btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->scrub_workers, 1); + ret = btrfs_start_workers(&fs_info->scrub_workers); + if (ret) + goto out; } ++fs_info->scrub_workers_refcnt; +out: mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock); - return 0; + return ret; } static noinline_for_stack void scrub_workers_put(struct btrfs_root *root) -- cgit v1.2.3