On Wed, Mar 06, 2013 at 06:39:30PM -0700, Miao Xie wrote: > On wed, 6 Mar 2013 09:53:28 -0500, Chris Mason wrote: > [SNIP] > > + async_work->delayed_root = delayed_root; > > + async_work->work.func = btrfs_async_run_delayed_root; > > + async_work->work.flags = 0; > > + if (nr) > > + async_work->nr = 0; > > + else > > + async_work->nr = nr; > > the code here is wrong. > the argument nr is the number we want to deal with, if it is 0, we will deal with all. Whoops, thanks. I missed that when I was cleaning things up. > > > > - btrfs_wq_run_delayed_node(delayed_root, root, 0); > > + btrfs_wq_run_delayed_node(delayed_root, root, BTRFS_DELAYED_BATCH); > > } > > There is a problem that we may introduce lots of btrfs_works, we need avoid > it. It is possible, but we won't make more than we used to. The real solution is to limit the workers per root, but the code isn't currently structured for that. Right now the workers will exit out if the number of pending items is below the delayed limit, which isn't perfect but I think it's the best I can do right now. Do you see better ways to improve it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
