linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@kernel.org>
To: "François-Xavier Thomas" <fx.thomas@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Massive I/O usage from btrfs-cleaner after upgrading to 5.16
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2022 16:59:33 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <YeWgdQ2ZvceLTIej@debian9.Home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <YeVawBBE3r6hVhgs@debian9.Home>

On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 12:02:08PM +0000, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 11:06:42AM +0100, François-Xavier Thomas wrote:
> > Hello all,
> > 
> > Just in case someone is having the same issue: Btrfs (in the
> > btrfs-cleaner process) is taking a large amount of disk IO after
> > upgrading to 5.16 on one of my volumes, and multiple other people seem
> > to be having the same issue, see discussion in [0].
> > 
> > [1] is a close-up screenshot of disk I/O history (blue line is write
> > ops, going from a baseline of some 10 ops/s to around 1k ops/s). I
> > downgraded from 5.16 to 5.15 in the middle, which immediately restored
> > previous performance.
> > 
> > Common options between affected people are: ssd, autodefrag. No error
> > in the logs, and no other issue aside from performance (the volume
> > works just fine for accessing data).
> > 
> > One person reports that SMART stats show a massive amount of blocks
> > being written; unfortunately I do not have historical data for that so
> > I cannot confirm, but this sounds likely given what I see on what
> > should be a relatively new SSD.
> > 
> > Any idea of what it could be related to?
> 
> There was a big refactor of the defrag code that landed in 5.16.
> 
> On a quick glance, when using autodefrag it seems we now can end up in an
> infinite loop by marking the same range for degrag (IO) over and over.
> 
> Can you try the following patch? (also at https://pastebin.com/raw/QR27Jv6n)

Actually try this one instead:

https://pastebin.com/raw/EbEfk1tF

Also, there's a bug with defrag running into an (almost) infinite loop when
attempting to defrag a 1 byte file. Someone ran into this and I've just sent
a fix for it:

https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-btrfs/patch/bcbfce0ff7e21bbfed2484b1457e560edf78020d.1642436805.git.fdmanana@suse.com/

Maybe that is what you are running into when using autodefrag.
Firt try that fix for the 1 byte file case, and if after that you still run
into problems, then try with the other patch above as well (both patches
applied).

Thanks.



> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> index a5bd6926f7ff..0a9f6125a566 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> @@ -1213,6 +1213,13 @@ static int defrag_collect_targets(struct btrfs_inode *inode,
>                 if (em->generation < newer_than)
>                         goto next;
>  
> +               /*
> +                * Skip extents already under IO, otherwise we can end up in an
> +                * infinite loop when using auto defrag.
> +                */
> +               if (em->generation == (u64)-1)
> +                       goto next;
> +
>                 /*
>                  * For do_compress case, we want to compress all valid file
>                  * extents, thus no @extent_thresh or mergeable check.
> 
> 
> > 
> > François-Xavier
> > 
> > [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/btrfs/comments/s4nrzb/massive_performance_degradation_after_upgrading/
> > [1] https://imgur.com/oYhYat1

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-17 17:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-01-17 10:06 François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-17 12:02 ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-17 16:59   ` Filipe Manana [this message]
2022-01-17 21:37     ` François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-19  9:44       ` François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-19 10:13         ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-20 11:37           ` François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-20 11:44             ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-20 12:02               ` François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-20 12:45                 ` Qu Wenruo
2022-01-20 12:55                   ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-20 17:46                 ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-20 18:21                   ` François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-21 10:49                     ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-21 19:39                       ` François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-21 23:34                         ` Qu Wenruo
2022-01-22 18:20                           ` François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-24  7:00                             ` Qu Wenruo
2022-01-25 20:00                               ` François-Xavier Thomas
2022-01-25 23:29                                 ` Qu Wenruo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly 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=YeWgdQ2ZvceLTIej@debian9.Home \
    --to=fdmanana@kernel.org \
    --cc=fx.thomas@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: Massive I/O usage from btrfs-cleaner after upgrading to 5.16' \
    /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

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).