Linux-BTRFS Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Cc: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/8] btrfs: loop in inode_rsv_refill
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2019 19:20:20 +0100
Message-ID: <20190206182020.GF2900@twin.jikos.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6a7a6a50-9a58-032e-e62a-c551b257b0ac@suse.com>

On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 06:01:57PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> 
> 
> On 3.12.18 г. 17:24 ч., Josef Bacik wrote:
> > With severe fragmentation we can end up with our inode rsv size being
> > huge during writeout, which would cause us to need to make very large
> > metadata reservations.  However we may not actually need that much once
> 
> The sentence beginning with "However" needs more information, why might
> we not need that much once writeout is complete?

Updated in changelog

> > writeout is complete.  So instead try to make our reservation, and if we
> > couldn't make it re-calculate our new reservation size and try again.
> 
> Why do you think that recalculating the requested bytes will be
> different the 2nd time ?

Partly answered in the comment in the code

> 
> > If our reservation size doesn't change between tries then we know we are
> > actually out of space and can error out.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 58 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
> >  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > index 0ee77a98f867..0e1a499035ac 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> > @@ -5787,6 +5787,21 @@ int btrfs_block_rsv_refill(struct btrfs_root *root,
> >  	return ret;
> >  }
> >  
> > +static inline void __get_refill_bytes(struct btrfs_block_rsv *block_rsv,
> > +				      u64 *metadata_bytes, u64 *qgroup_bytes)
> 
> This function needs a better name. Something like calc_required_bytes or
> calc_refill_bytes

renamed to calc_refill_bytes

> 
> > +{
> > +	*metadata_bytes = 0;
> > +	*qgroup_bytes = 0;
> > +
> > +	spin_lock(&block_rsv->lock);
> > +	if (block_rsv->reserved < block_rsv->size)
> > +		*metadata_bytes = block_rsv->size - block_rsv->reserved;
> > +	if (block_rsv->qgroup_rsv_reserved < block_rsv->qgroup_rsv_size)
> > +		*qgroup_bytes = block_rsv->qgroup_rsv_size -
> > +			block_rsv->qgroup_rsv_reserved;
> > +	spin_unlock(&block_rsv->lock);
> > +}
> > +
> >  /**
> >   * btrfs_inode_rsv_refill - refill the inode block rsv.
> >   * @inode - the inode we are refilling.
> > @@ -5802,25 +5817,39 @@ static int btrfs_inode_rsv_refill(struct btrfs_inode *inode,
> >  {
> >  	struct btrfs_root *root = inode->root;
> >  	struct btrfs_block_rsv *block_rsv = &inode->block_rsv;
> > -	u64 num_bytes = 0;
> > +	u64 num_bytes = 0, last = 0;
> >  	u64 qgroup_num_bytes = 0;
> >  	int ret = -ENOSPC;
> >  
> > -	spin_lock(&block_rsv->lock);
> > -	if (block_rsv->reserved < block_rsv->size)
> > -		num_bytes = block_rsv->size - block_rsv->reserved;
> > -	if (block_rsv->qgroup_rsv_reserved < block_rsv->qgroup_rsv_size)
> > -		qgroup_num_bytes = block_rsv->qgroup_rsv_size -
> > -				   block_rsv->qgroup_rsv_reserved;
> > -	spin_unlock(&block_rsv->lock);
> > -
> > +	__get_refill_bytes(block_rsv, &num_bytes, &qgroup_num_bytes);
> >  	if (num_bytes == 0)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> > -	ret = btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta_prealloc(root, qgroup_num_bytes, true);
> > -	if (ret)
> > -		return ret;
> > -	ret = reserve_metadata_bytes(root, block_rsv, num_bytes, flush);
> > +	do {
> > +		ret = btrfs_qgroup_reserve_meta_prealloc(root, qgroup_num_bytes, true);
> > +		if (ret)
> > +			return ret;
> > +		ret = reserve_metadata_bytes(root, block_rsv, num_bytes, flush);
> > +		if (ret) {
> > +			btrfs_qgroup_free_meta_prealloc(root, qgroup_num_bytes);
> > +			last = num_bytes;
> > +			/*
> > +			 * If we are fragmented we can end up with a lot of
> > +			 * outstanding extents which will make our size be much
> > +			 * larger than our reserved amount.  If we happen to
> > +			 * try to do a reservation here that may result in us
> > +			 * trying to do a pretty hefty reservation, which we may
> > +			 * not need once delalloc flushing happens.  If this is
> 
> The "If we happen" sentence needs to be reworded because it's -ENOPARSE.
> Perhaps one of the "to do a reservation" should go away?

Reworded

  reply index

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-03 15:24 [PATCH 0/8][V2] Enospc cleanups and fixeS Josef Bacik
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 1/8] btrfs: check if free bgs for commit Josef Bacik
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 2/8] btrfs: dump block_rsv whe dumping space info Josef Bacik
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 3/8] btrfs: don't use global rsv for chunk allocation Josef Bacik
2018-12-11  9:59   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 4/8] btrfs: add ALLOC_CHUNK_FORCE to the flushing code Josef Bacik
2018-12-11 10:08   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-11 16:47     ` David Sterba
2018-12-11 16:51       ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-11 19:04         ` David Sterba
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 5/8] btrfs: don't enospc all tickets on flush failure Josef Bacik
2018-12-11 14:32   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 6/8] btrfs: loop in inode_rsv_refill Josef Bacik
2018-12-12 16:01   ` Nikolay Borisov
2019-02-06 18:20     ` David Sterba [this message]
2019-01-30 16:41   ` David Sterba
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 7/8] btrfs: be more explicit about allowed flush states Josef Bacik
2018-12-11 18:28   ` David Sterba
2018-12-12  8:40   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 8/8] btrfs: reserve extra space during evict() Josef Bacik
2018-12-14  8:20   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-13 14:11 ` [PATCH 0/8][V2] Enospc cleanups and fixeS David Sterba
2018-12-13 14:36   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-13 14:45   ` Josef Bacik
2018-12-13 18:17     ` David Sterba
2018-12-13 18:28       ` Josef Bacik
2018-12-13 18:41         ` David Sterba
2019-02-08 16:08 ` David Sterba
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-11-21 19:03 [PATCH 0/8] Enospc cleanups and fixes Josef Bacik
2018-11-21 19:03 ` [PATCH 6/8] btrfs: loop in inode_rsv_refill Josef Bacik

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20190206182020.GF2900@twin.jikos.cz \
    --to=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=nborisov@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-BTRFS Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/0 linux-btrfs/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-btrfs linux-btrfs/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs \
		linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org linux-btrfs@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-btrfs


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox