We're not supposed to block if BTREE_INSERT_JOURNAL_RECLAIM && watermark
!= BCH_WATERMARK_reclaim.
This should really be a separate BTREE_INSERT_NONBLOCK flag - add some
comments to that effect, it's not important for this patch.
btree write buffer flush depends on this behaviour though - the first
loop tries to flush sequentially, which doesn't free up space in the
journal optimally. If that can't proceed we bail out and flush in
journal order - that won't work if we're blocked instead of returning an
error.
Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@linux.dev>
bch2_err_matches(ret, ENOMEM)) {
struct closure cl;
+ /*
+ * XXX: this should probably be a separate BTREE_INSERT_NONBLOCK
+ * flag
+ */
+ if (bch2_err_matches(ret, ENOSPC) &&
+ (flags & BTREE_INSERT_JOURNAL_RECLAIM) &&
+ watermark != BCH_WATERMARK_reclaim) {
+ ret = -BCH_ERR_journal_reclaim_would_deadlock;
+ goto err;
+ }
+
closure_init_stack(&cl);
do {
bch2_replicas_delta_list_mark(c, trans->fs_usage_deltas));
break;
case -BCH_ERR_journal_res_get_blocked:
+ /*
+ * XXX: this should probably be a separate BTREE_INSERT_NONBLOCK
+ * flag
+ */
if ((flags & BTREE_INSERT_JOURNAL_RECLAIM) &&
(flags & BCH_WATERMARK_MASK) != BCH_WATERMARK_reclaim) {
ret = -BCH_ERR_journal_reclaim_would_deadlock;