When we break sharing on btree nodes we typically need to increment
the reference counts to every value held in the node. This can
cause a lot of repeated calls to the space maps. Fix this by changing
the interface to the space map inc/dec methods to take ranges of
adjacent blocks to be operated on.
For installations that are using a lot of snapshots this will reduce
cpu overhead of fundamental operations such as provisioning a new block,
or deleting a snapshot, by as much as 10 times.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
A value is assigned to 'nr_entries' but is never used, remove it.
Signed-off-by: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@sandisk.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
More efficient way to iterate an array due to prefetching (makes use of
the new dm_btree_cursor_* api).
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
dm_array_new() creates a new, populated array more efficiently than
starting with an empty one and resizing.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
dm_bm_unlock and dm_tm_unlock return an integer value but the returned
value is always 0. The calling code sometimes checks the return value
and sometimes doesn't.
Eliminate these unnecessary return values and also the checks for them.
Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
This could've been quite bad (to return success but not update the new
root to point at the old) but in practice the only known consumer of the
dm array code is the DM cache target. And the DM cache target passes in
the same old root to array_resize() anyway.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
An old array block could have its reference count decremented below
zero when it is being replaced in the btree by a new array block.
The fix is to increment the old ablock's reference count just before
inserting a new ablock into the btree.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.9+
Entries would be lost if the old tail block was partially filled.
Signed-off-by: Joe Thornber <ejt@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 3.9+
Joe Thornber