From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-13.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,MENTIONS_GIT_HOSTING,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D0711C47080 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6F6361351 for ; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:22:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S231320AbhFBCYk (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 22:24:40 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:34300 "EHLO mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231277AbhFBCYa (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Jun 2021 22:24:30 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.43/8.16.0.43) with SMTP id 15224Faa090441; Tue, 1 Jun 2021 22:22:45 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ibm.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : content-type : in-reply-to : mime-version; s=pp1; bh=NjVoUSR2Qf8UHqA5v29JJWlN/SIxOusx1MESgKJiV9A=; b=dr1dMyl3s6REFWIRnHNsLN2D9IOvYtl6u4i+MI90+GoL2oluCevX6sY7ZkKx/664dLUa sJAWdRxHU9W77XqnHDeI4j5taGI1q/ynhqC4vKgOTGV9ajDXxUoigOnNvzWejMWVs0dS 9rCvE9LAdWjtzxMTDOKkl3vaoESNMpDCESKGDWnaD1i+kN6XQgM0ixDFfScHkZ76REQZ l2IzfegVeB0jkW/0aek+ltGXzcsFwHY5Gs3CULblPUJSSaXNShiiBSb9hj2qtXyuc2h+ ZbY9QWKz5da3NSbwfNR+wMhLrQF/cBSvQ/wgWcinB++FcQEm3Wc3x9y97Z9FS15mzp2f Iw== Received: from ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (47.49.7a9f.ip4.static.sl-reverse.com [159.122.73.71]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 38x05f95aq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 01 Jun 2021 22:22:45 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (ppma02fra.de.ibm.com [127.0.0.1]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com (8.16.1.2/8.16.1.2) with SMTP id 1522Mhlx015916; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:22:43 GMT Received: from b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay11.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.196]) by ppma02fra.de.ibm.com with ESMTP id 38w413rf9x-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 02 Jun 2021 02:22:43 +0000 Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.105.160]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id 1522MfgG28901686 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:22:41 GMT Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id 15E82A405B; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:22:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by IMSVA (Postfix) with ESMTP id B43EAA4060; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:22:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [9.85.75.172]) by b06wcsmtp001.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 02:22:40 +0000 (GMT) Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 07:52:39 +0530 From: riteshh To: Qu Wenruo Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, David Sterba Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 00/30] btrfs: add data write support for subpage Message-ID: <20210602022239.7ueomwrumsbbc5wu@riteshh-domain> References: <20210531085106.259490-1-wqu@suse.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20210531085106.259490-1-wqu@suse.com> X-TM-AS-GCONF: 00 X-Proofpoint-GUID: 1RuJ9pZ_msHT6_O6u9HAnOqUsJ-9EhdH X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 1RuJ9pZ_msHT6_O6u9HAnOqUsJ-9EhdH X-Proofpoint-UnRewURL: 0 URL was un-rewritten MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:6.0.391,18.0.761 definitions=2021-06-01_12:2021-06-01,2021-06-01 signatures=0 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=outbound_notspam policy=outbound score=0 mlxscore=0 clxscore=1011 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 spamscore=0 priorityscore=1501 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2104190000 definitions=main-2106020011 Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org On 21/05/31 04:50PM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > This huge patchset can be fetched from github: > https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/subpage > > === Current stage === > The tests on x86 pass without new failure, and generic test group on > arm64 with 64K page size passes except known failure and defrag group. > > For btrfs test group, all pass except compression/raid56/defrag. > > For anyone who is interested in testing, please apply this patch for > btrfs-progs before testing. > https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/patch/20210420073036.243715-1-wqu@suse.com/ > Or there will be too many false alerts. > > === Limitation === > There are several limitations introduced just for subpage: > - No compressed write support > Read is no problem, but compression write path has more things left to > be modified. > Thus for current patchset, no matter what inode attribute or mount > option is, no new compressed extent can be created for subpage case. > > - No inline extent will be created > This is mostly due to the fact that filemap_fdatawrite_range() will > trigger more write than the range specified. > In fallocate calls, this behavior can make us to writeback which can > be inlined, before we enlarge the isize, causing inline extent being > created along with regular extents. > > - No support for RAID56 > There are still too many hardcoded PAGE_SIZE in raid56 code. > Considering it's already considered unsafe due to its write-hole > problem, disabling RAID56 for subpage looks sane to me. > > - No defrag support for subpage > The support for subpage defrag has already an initial version > submitted to the mail list. > Thus the correct support won't be included in this patchset. > > === Patchset structure === > > Patch 01~19: Make data write path to be subpage compatible > Patch 20~21: Make data relocation path to be subpage compatible > Patch 22~29: Various fixes for subpage corner cases > Patch 30: Enable subpage data write > > === Changelog === > v2: > - Rebased to latest misc-next > Now metadata write patches are removed from the series, as they are > already merged into misc-next. > > - Added new Reviewed-by/Tested-by/Reported-by tags > > - Use separate endio functions to subpage metadata write path > > - Re-order the patches, to make refactors at the top of the series > One refactor, the submit_extent_page() one, should benefit 4K page > size more than 64K page size, thus it's worthy to be merged early > > - New bug fixes exposed by Ritesh Harjani on Power > > - Reject RAID56 completely > Exposed by btrfs test group, which caused BUG_ON() for various sites. > Considering RAID56 is already not considered safe, it's better to > reject them completely for now. > > - Fix subpage scrub repair failure > Caused by hardcoded PAGE_SIZE > > - Fix free space cache inode size > Same cause as scrub repair failure > > v3: > - Rebased to remove write path prepration patches > > - Properly enable btrfs defrag > Previsouly, btrfs defrag is in fact just disabled. > This makes tons of tests in btrfs/defrag to fail. > > - More bug fixes for rare race/crashes > * Fix relocation false alert on csum mismatch > * Fix relocation data corruption > * Fix a rare case of false ASSERT() > The fix already get merged into the prepration patches, thus no > longer in this patchset though. > > Mostly reported by Ritesh from IBM. > > v4: > - Disable subpage defrag completely > As full page defrag can race with fsstress in btrfs/062, causing > strange ordered extent bugs. > The full subpage defrag will be submitted as an indepdent patchset. Hello Qu, I have completed another 2 full iterations of testing this v4 with "-g all" on Power. There are no failures reported (other than the known ones mostly due to defrag disabled) and no kernel warnings/errors reported with v4 of your patch series (other than a known one causing transaction abort -28 msg, but that seems to be triggering even w/o your patch series i.e. with 64k blocksize too). >From the test perspective, please feel free to add below for your v4. Tested-by: Ritesh Harjani [ppc64] I think since this patch series looks good, I can now start helping with defrag patch series of yours :) That should be on top of this v4 I guess. Thanks a lot for your effort and help!! -ritesh