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 <josef@redhat.com>

1 files changed, 6 insertions, 2 deletions

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
index c27bcb6..ddf2c90 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)