* [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk
@ 2017-06-14 15:44 jeffm
2017-06-14 15:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: Simplify math in should_alloc chunk jeffm
2017-06-21 20:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk Jeff Mahoney
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jeffm @ 2017-06-14 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: Jeff Mahoney
From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
In a heavy write scenario, we can end up with a large number of pinned
bytes. This can translate into (very) premature ENOSPC because pinned
bytes must be accounted for when allowing a reservation but aren't
accounted for when deciding whether to create a new chunk.
This patch adds the accounting to should_alloc_chunk so that we can
create the chunk.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index cb0b924..d027807 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -4389,7 +4389,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
{
struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
- u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved;
+ u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved + sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
u64 thresh;
if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
--
1.8.5.6
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: Simplify math in should_alloc chunk
2017-06-14 15:44 [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk jeffm
@ 2017-06-14 15:44 ` jeffm
2017-06-21 20:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk Jeff Mahoney
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: jeffm @ 2017-06-14 15:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs; +Cc: Nikolay Borisov, Jeff Mahoney
From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Currently should_alloc_chunk uses ->total_bytes - ->bytes_readonly to
signify the total amount of bytes in this space info. However, given
Jeff's patch which adds bytes_pinned and bytes_may_use to the calculation
of num_allocated it becomes a lot more clear to just eliminate num_bytes
altogether and add the bytes_readonly to the amount of used space. That
way we don't change the results of the following statements. In the
process also start using btrfs_space_info_used.
Signed-off-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 9 ++++-----
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index d027807..6111f79 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -4388,8 +4388,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
struct btrfs_space_info *sinfo, int force)
{
struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
- u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
- u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved + sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
+ u64 bytes_used = btrfs_space_info_used(sinfo, true);
u64 thresh;
if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
@@ -4401,7 +4400,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
* global_rsv, it doesn't change except when the transaction commits.
*/
if (sinfo->flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA)
- num_allocated += calc_global_rsv_need_space(global_rsv);
+ bytes_used += calc_global_rsv_need_space(global_rsv);
/*
* in limited mode, we want to have some free space up to
@@ -4411,11 +4410,11 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
thresh = btrfs_super_total_bytes(fs_info->super_copy);
thresh = max_t(u64, SZ_64M, div_factor_fine(thresh, 1));
- if (num_bytes - num_allocated < thresh)
+ if (sinfo->total_bytes - bytes_used < thresh)
return 1;
}
- if (num_allocated + SZ_2M < div_factor(num_bytes, 8))
+ if (bytes_used + SZ_2M < div_factor(sinfo->total_bytes, 8))
return 0;
return 1;
}
--
1.8.5.6
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk
2017-06-14 15:44 [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk jeffm
2017-06-14 15:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: Simplify math in should_alloc chunk jeffm
@ 2017-06-21 20:14 ` Jeff Mahoney
2017-06-21 20:31 ` Chris Mason
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Mahoney @ 2017-06-21 20:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1453 bytes --]
On 6/14/17 11:44 AM, jeffm@suse.com wrote:
> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>
> In a heavy write scenario, we can end up with a large number of pinned
> bytes. This can translate into (very) premature ENOSPC because pinned
> bytes must be accounted for when allowing a reservation but aren't
> accounted for when deciding whether to create a new chunk.
>
> This patch adds the accounting to should_alloc_chunk so that we can
> create the chunk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index cb0b924..d027807 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -4389,7 +4389,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> {
> struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
> u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
> - u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved;
> + u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved + sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
> u64 thresh;
>
> if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
>
Ignore this patch. It certainly allocates chunks more aggressively, but
it means we end up with a ton of metadata chunks even when we don't have
much metadata.
-Jeff
--
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk
2017-06-21 20:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk Jeff Mahoney
@ 2017-06-21 20:31 ` Chris Mason
2017-06-21 21:08 ` Jeff Mahoney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chris Mason @ 2017-06-21 20:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Mahoney, linux-btrfs
On 06/21/2017 04:14 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 6/14/17 11:44 AM, jeffm@suse.com wrote:
>> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>>
>> In a heavy write scenario, we can end up with a large number of pinned
>> bytes. This can translate into (very) premature ENOSPC because pinned
>> bytes must be accounted for when allowing a reservation but aren't
>> accounted for when deciding whether to create a new chunk.
>>
>> This patch adds the accounting to should_alloc_chunk so that we can
>> create the chunk.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>> ---
>> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>> index cb0b924..d027807 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>> @@ -4389,7 +4389,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>> {
>> struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
>> u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
>> - u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved;
>> + u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved + sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
>> u64 thresh;
>>
>> if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
>>
>
>
> Ignore this patch. It certainly allocates chunks more aggressively, but
> it means we end up with a ton of metadata chunks even when we don't have
> much metadata.
>
Josef and I pushed this needle back and forth a bunch of times in the
early days. I still think we can allocate a few more chunks than we do
now...
-chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk
2017-06-21 20:31 ` Chris Mason
@ 2017-06-21 21:08 ` Jeff Mahoney
2017-06-21 21:15 ` Chris Mason
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Mahoney @ 2017-06-21 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Mason, linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2415 bytes --]
On 6/21/17 4:31 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
> On 06/21/2017 04:14 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>> On 6/14/17 11:44 AM, jeffm@suse.com wrote:
>>> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>>>
>>> In a heavy write scenario, we can end up with a large number of pinned
>>> bytes. This can translate into (very) premature ENOSPC because pinned
>>> bytes must be accounted for when allowing a reservation but aren't
>>> accounted for when deciding whether to create a new chunk.
>>>
>>> This patch adds the accounting to should_alloc_chunk so that we can
>>> create the chunk.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>>> ---
>>> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> index cb0b924..d027807 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>> @@ -4389,7 +4389,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct
>>> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>> {
>>> struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
>>> u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
>>> - u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved;
>>> + u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved +
>>> sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
>>> u64 thresh;
>>>
>>> if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
>>>
>>
>>
>> Ignore this patch. It certainly allocates chunks more aggressively, but
>> it means we end up with a ton of metadata chunks even when we don't have
>> much metadata.
>>
>
> Josef and I pushed this needle back and forth a bunch of times in the
> early days. I still think we can allocate a few more chunks than we do
> now...
I agree. This patch was to fix an issue that we are seeing during
installation. It'd stop with ENOSPC with >50GB completely unallocated.
The patch passed the test cases that were failing before but now it's
failing differently. I was worried this pattern might be the end result:
Data,single: Size:4.00GiB, Used:3.32GiB
/dev/vde 4.00GiB
Metadata,DUP: Size:20.00GiB, Used:204.12MiB
/dev/vde 40.00GiB
System,DUP: Size:8.00MiB, Used:16.00KiB
/dev/vde 16.00MiB
This is on a fresh file system with just "cp /usr /mnt" executed.
I'm looking into it a bit more now.
-Jeff
--
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk
2017-06-21 21:08 ` Jeff Mahoney
@ 2017-06-21 21:15 ` Chris Mason
2017-06-21 21:41 ` Jeff Mahoney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Chris Mason @ 2017-06-21 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jeff Mahoney, linux-btrfs
On 06/21/2017 05:08 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 6/21/17 4:31 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> On 06/21/2017 04:14 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>> On 6/14/17 11:44 AM, jeffm@suse.com wrote:
>>>> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>>>>
>>>> In a heavy write scenario, we can end up with a large number of pinned
>>>> bytes. This can translate into (very) premature ENOSPC because pinned
>>>> bytes must be accounted for when allowing a reservation but aren't
>>>> accounted for when deciding whether to create a new chunk.
>>>>
>>>> This patch adds the accounting to should_alloc_chunk so that we can
>>>> create the chunk.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>> index cb0b924..d027807 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>> @@ -4389,7 +4389,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct
>>>> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>>> {
>>>> struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
>>>> u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
>>>> - u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved;
>>>> + u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved +
>>>> sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
>>>> u64 thresh;
>>>>
>>>> if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ignore this patch. It certainly allocates chunks more aggressively, but
>>> it means we end up with a ton of metadata chunks even when we don't have
>>> much metadata.
>>>
>>
>> Josef and I pushed this needle back and forth a bunch of times in the
>> early days. I still think we can allocate a few more chunks than we do
>> now...
>
> I agree. This patch was to fix an issue that we are seeing during
> installation. It'd stop with ENOSPC with >50GB completely unallocated.
> The patch passed the test cases that were failing before but now it's
> failing differently. I was worried this pattern might be the end result:
>
> Data,single: Size:4.00GiB, Used:3.32GiB
> /dev/vde 4.00GiB
>
> Metadata,DUP: Size:20.00GiB, Used:204.12MiB
> /dev/vde 40.00GiB
>
> System,DUP: Size:8.00MiB, Used:16.00KiB
> /dev/vde 16.00MiB
>
> This is on a fresh file system with just "cp /usr /mnt" executed.
>
> I'm looking into it a bit more now.
Does this failure still happen with Omar's ENOSPC fix (commit:
70e7af244f24c94604ef6eca32ad297632018583)
-chris
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk
2017-06-21 21:15 ` Chris Mason
@ 2017-06-21 21:41 ` Jeff Mahoney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Jeff Mahoney @ 2017-06-21 21:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Mason, linux-btrfs
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2885 bytes --]
On 6/21/17 5:15 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>
>
> On 06/21/2017 05:08 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>> On 6/21/17 4:31 PM, Chris Mason wrote:
>>> On 06/21/2017 04:14 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
>>>> On 6/14/17 11:44 AM, jeffm@suse.com wrote:
>>>>> From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> In a heavy write scenario, we can end up with a large number of pinned
>>>>> bytes. This can translate into (very) premature ENOSPC because pinned
>>>>> bytes must be accounted for when allowing a reservation but aren't
>>>>> accounted for when deciding whether to create a new chunk.
>>>>>
>>>>> This patch adds the accounting to should_alloc_chunk so that we can
>>>>> create the chunk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>>> index cb0b924..d027807 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>>>>> @@ -4389,7 +4389,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct
>>>>> btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>>>> {
>>>>> struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
>>>>> u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
>>>>> - u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved;
>>>>> + u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved +
>>>>> sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
>>>>> u64 thresh;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ignore this patch. It certainly allocates chunks more aggressively,
>>>> but
>>>> it means we end up with a ton of metadata chunks even when we don't
>>>> have
>>>> much metadata.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Josef and I pushed this needle back and forth a bunch of times in the
>>> early days. I still think we can allocate a few more chunks than we do
>>> now...
>>
>> I agree. This patch was to fix an issue that we are seeing during
>> installation. It'd stop with ENOSPC with >50GB completely unallocated.
>> The patch passed the test cases that were failing before but now it's
>> failing differently. I was worried this pattern might be the end result:
>>
>> Data,single: Size:4.00GiB, Used:3.32GiB
>> /dev/vde 4.00GiB
>>
>> Metadata,DUP: Size:20.00GiB, Used:204.12MiB
>> /dev/vde 40.00GiB
>>
>> System,DUP: Size:8.00MiB, Used:16.00KiB
>> /dev/vde 16.00MiB
>>
>> This is on a fresh file system with just "cp /usr /mnt" executed.
>>
>> I'm looking into it a bit more now.
>
> Does this failure still happen with Omar's ENOSPC fix (commit:
> 70e7af244f24c94604ef6eca32ad297632018583)
Nope. There aren't any warnings either with or without my patch.
Adding Omar's didn't make a difference.
-Jeff
--
Jeff Mahoney
SUSE Labs
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-06-21 21:41 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-06-14 15:44 [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk jeffm
2017-06-14 15:44 ` [PATCH 2/2] btrfs: Simplify math in should_alloc chunk jeffm
2017-06-21 20:14 ` [PATCH 1/2] btrfs: account for pinned bytes and bytes_may_use in should_alloc_chunk Jeff Mahoney
2017-06-21 20:31 ` Chris Mason
2017-06-21 21:08 ` Jeff Mahoney
2017-06-21 21:15 ` Chris Mason
2017-06-21 21:41 ` Jeff Mahoney
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.