On 2018/12/8 上午8:47, David Sterba wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 06:51:21AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2018/12/7 上午3:35, David Sterba wrote:
>>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 10:33:33PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Nov 08, 2018 at 01:49:12PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>> This patchset can be fetched from github:
>>>>> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/qgroup_delayed_subtree_rebased
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is based on v4.20-rc1.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, I'll add it to for-next soon.
>>>
>>> The branch was there for some time but not for at least a week (my
>>> mistake I did not notice in time). I've rebased it on top of recent
>>> misc-next, but without the delayed refs patchset from Josef.
>>>
>>> At the moment I'm considering it for merge to 4.21, there's still some
>>> time to pull it out in case it shows up to be too problematic. I'm
>>> mostly worried about the unknown interactions with the enospc updates or
>>
>> For that part, I don't think it would have some obvious problem for
>> enospc updates.
>>
>> As the user-noticeable effect is the delay of reloc tree deletion.
>>
>> Despite that, it's mostly transparent to extent allocation.
>>
>>> generally because of lack of qgroup and reloc code reviews.
>>
>> That's the biggest problem.
>>
>> However most of the current qgroup + balance optimization is done inside
>> qgroup code (to skip certain qgroup record), if we're going to hit some
>> problem then this patchset would have the highest possibility to hit
>> problem.
>>
>> Later patches will just keep tweaking qgroup to without affecting any
>> other parts mostly.
>>
>> So I'm fine if you decide to pull it out for now.
> 
> I've adapted a stress tests that unpacks a large tarball, snaphosts
> every 20 seconds, deletes a random snapshot every 50 seconds, deletes
> file from the original subvolume, now enhanced with qgroups just for the
> new snapshots inherigin the toplevel subvolume. Lockup.
> 
> It gets stuck in a snapshot call with the follwin stacktrace
> 
> [<0>] btrfs_tree_read_lock+0xf3/0x150 [btrfs]
> [<0>] btrfs_qgroup_trace_subtree+0x280/0x7b0 [btrfs]

This looks like the original subtree tracing has something wrong.

Thanks for the report, I'll investigate it.
Qu

> [<0>] do_walk_down+0x681/0xb20 [btrfs]
> [<0>] walk_down_tree+0xf5/0x1c0 [btrfs]
> [<0>] btrfs_drop_snapshot+0x43b/0xb60 [btrfs]
> [<0>] btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0xc1/0x120 [btrfs]
> [<0>] cleaner_kthread+0xf8/0x170 [btrfs]
> [<0>] kthread+0x121/0x140
> [<0>] ret_from_fork+0x27/0x50
> 
> and that's like 10th snapshot and ~3rd deltion. This is qgroup show:
> 
> qgroupid         rfer         excl parent
> --------         ----         ---- ------
> 0/5         865.27MiB      1.66MiB ---
> 0/257           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/259           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/260       806.58MiB    637.25MiB ---
> 0/262           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/263           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/264           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/265           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/266           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/267           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/268           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/269           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/270       989.04MiB      1.22MiB ---
> 0/271           0.00B        0.00B ---
> 0/272       922.25MiB    416.00KiB ---
> 0/273       931.02MiB      1.50MiB ---
> 0/274       910.94MiB      1.52MiB ---
> 1/1           1.64GiB      1.64GiB
> 0/5,0/257,0/259,0/260,0/262,0/263,0/264,0/265,0/266,0/267,0/268,0/269,0/270,0/271,0/272,0/273,0/274
> 
> No IO or cpu activity at this point, the stacktrace and show output
> remains the same.
> 
> So, considering this, I'm not going to add the patchset to 4.21 but will
> keep it in for-next for testing, any fixups or updates will be applied.
>