btrfs: account for new extents being deleted in total_bytes_pinned

btrfs: account for new extents being deleted in total_bytes_pinned

My recent patch set "A variety of lock contention fixes", found here

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/cover.1608319304.git.josef@toxicpanda.com/
(Tracked in https://github.com/btrfs/linux/issues/86)

that reduce lock contention on the extent root by running delayed refs
less often resulted in a regression in generic/371.  This test
fallocate()'s the fs until it's full, deletes all the files, and then
tries to fallocate() until full again.

Before these patches we would run all of the delayed refs during
flushing, and then would commit the transaction because we had plenty of
pinned space to recover in order to allocate.  However my patches made
it so we weren't running the delayed refs as aggressively, which meant
that we appeared to have less pinned space when we were deciding to
commit the transaction.

We use the space_info->total_bytes_pinned to approximate how much space
we have pinned.  It's approximate because if we remove a reference to an
extent we may free it, but there may be more references to it than we
know of at that point, but we account it as pinned at the creation time,
and then it's properly accounted when the delayed ref runs.

The way we account for pinned space is if the
delayed_ref_head->total_ref_mod is < 0, because that is clearly a
freeing option.  However there is another case, and that is where
->total_ref_mod == 0 && ->must_insert_reserved == 1.

When we allocate a new extent, we have ->total_ref_mod == 1 and we have
->must_insert_reserved == 1.  This is used to indicate that it is a
brand new extent and will need to have its extent entry added before we
modify any references on the delayed ref head.  But if we subsequently
remove that extent reference, our ->total_ref_mod will be 0, and that
space will be pinned and freed.  Accounting for this case properly
allows for generic/371 to pass with my delayed refs patches applied.

It's important to note that this problem exists without the referenced
patches, it just was uncovered by them.

CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.10
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>