* [PATCH RFC] generic 223: Ensure xfs allocator will honor alignment requirements @ 2019-08-26 14:47 Carlos Maiolino 2019-08-27 13:38 ` Brian Foster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Carlos Maiolino @ 2019-08-26 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-xfs If the files being allocated during the test do not fit into a single Allocation Group, XFS allocator may disable alignment requirements causing the test to fail even though XFS was working as expected. Fix this by fixing a min AG size, so all files created during the test will fit into a single AG not disabling XFS alignment requirements. Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com> --- Hi, I am tagging this patch as a RFC mostly to start a discussion here, regarding this issue found while running generic/223. The generic/223 fails when running it with finobt disabled. Specifically, the last file being fallocated are unaligned. When the finobt is enabled, the allocator does not try to squeeze partial file data into small available extents in AG 0, while it does when finobt is disabled. Here are the bmap of the same file after generic/223 finishes with and without finobt: finobt=0 /mnt/scratch/file-1073745920-falloc: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..191]: 320..511 0 (320..511) 192 001011 1: [192..375]: 64..247 0 (64..247) 184 001111 2: [376..1287791]: 678400..1965815 0 (678400..1965815) 1287416 000111 3: [1287792..2097159]: 1966080..2775447 1 (256..809623) 809368 000101 finobt=1 /mnt/scratch/file-1073745920-falloc: EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS 0: [0..1285831]: 678400..1964231 0 (678400..1964231) 1285832 000111 1: [1285832..2097159]: 1966080..2777407 1 (256..811583) 811328 000101 I still don't know the details about why the allocator takes different decisions depending on finobt being used or not, although I believe it's because the extra space being used in each AG, and the default AG size when running the test, but I'm still reading the code to try to understand this difference. Even though I think there might be room for improvement in the XFS allocator code to avoid this bypass of alignment requirements here, I still think the test should be fixed to avoid forcing the filesystem to drop alignment constraints during file allocation which basically invalidate the test, and that's why I decided to start the discussion with a RFC patch for the test, but sending it to xfs list instead of fstests. Comments? Cheers tests/generic/223 | 9 ++++++++- 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/tests/generic/223 b/tests/generic/223 index dfd8c41b..782651e2 100755 --- a/tests/generic/223 +++ b/tests/generic/223 @@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ _require_xfs_io_command "falloc" rm -f $seqres.full +# Ensure we won't trick xfs allocator to disable alignment requirements +if [ "$FSTYP" == "xfs" ]; then + mkfs_opts="-d agsize=2g" +else + mkfs_opts="" +fi + BLOCKSIZE=4096 for SUNIT_K in 8 16 32 64 128; do @@ -41,7 +48,7 @@ for SUNIT_K in 8 16 32 64 128; do let SUNIT_BLOCKS=$SUNIT_BYTES/$BLOCKSIZE echo "=== mkfs with su $SUNIT_BLOCKS blocks x 4 ===" - export MKFS_OPTIONS="" + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$mkfs_opts _scratch_mkfs_geom $SUNIT_BYTES 4 $BLOCKSIZE >> $seqres.full 2>&1 _scratch_mount -- 2.20.1 ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] generic 223: Ensure xfs allocator will honor alignment requirements 2019-08-26 14:47 [PATCH RFC] generic 223: Ensure xfs allocator will honor alignment requirements Carlos Maiolino @ 2019-08-27 13:38 ` Brian Foster 2019-08-27 15:33 ` Carlos Maiolino 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Brian Foster @ 2019-08-27 13:38 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Carlos Maiolino; +Cc: linux-xfs On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 04:47:12PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > If the files being allocated during the test do not fit into a single > Allocation Group, XFS allocator may disable alignment requirements > causing the test to fail even though XFS was working as expected. > > Fix this by fixing a min AG size, so all files created during the test > will fit into a single AG not disabling XFS alignment requirements. > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com> > --- > > Hi, > > I am tagging this patch as a RFC mostly to start a discussion here, regarding > this issue found while running generic/223. > > The generic/223 fails when running it with finobt disabled. Specifically, the > last file being fallocated are unaligned. > > When the finobt is enabled, the allocator does not try to squeeze partial file > data into small available extents in AG 0, while it does when finobt is > disabled. > > Here are the bmap of the same file after generic/223 finishes with and without > finobt: > > finobt=0 > > /mnt/scratch/file-1073745920-falloc: > EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS > 0: [0..191]: 320..511 0 (320..511) 192 001011 > 1: [192..375]: 64..247 0 (64..247) 184 001111 > 2: [376..1287791]: 678400..1965815 0 (678400..1965815) 1287416 000111 > 3: [1287792..2097159]: 1966080..2775447 1 (256..809623) 809368 000101 > > > finobt=1 > > /mnt/scratch/file-1073745920-falloc: > EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS > 0: [0..1285831]: 678400..1964231 0 (678400..1964231) 1285832 000111 > 1: [1285832..2097159]: 1966080..2777407 1 (256..811583) 811328 000101 > > > I still don't know the details about why the allocator takes different decisions > depending on finobt being used or not, although I believe it's because the extra > space being used in each AG, and the default AG size when running the test, but > I'm still reading the code to try to understand this difference. > For reference, I think this behavior is related to a couple patches I posted a few months ago[1]. I reproduced similar behavior after some of extent allocation rework changes and ultimately determined that the changes I had at the time weren't really the root cause. The commit log for patch 1 in that series shows a straightforward example that IIRC doesn't have anything to do with finobt either. > Even though I think there might be room for improvement in the XFS allocator > code to avoid this bypass of alignment requirements here, I still think the test > should be fixed to avoid forcing the filesystem to drop alignment constraints > during file allocation which basically invalidate the test, and that's why I > decided to start the discussion with a RFC patch for the test, but sending it to > xfs list instead of fstests. > The question I have is is this test doing anything a user wouldn't expect to honor alignment? I understand that alignment is not guaranteed, but I wouldn't expect to play that card unless the filesystem is low on free space or aligned space in general (IIRC that's something we check by adding the worst case alignment to the size of the allocation request). The example I had was a 1GB fallocate on an empty ~15GB/16AG fs (i.e. allocation larger than a single AG). That is a corner case, but one I'd expect to work. With regard to generic/223, what is it doing in this case to "force the filesystem to drop alignment?" I think you could make the argument that the test needs fixing if it's doing something that legitimately risks the ability to align allocations, but I also think you could argue that the test has done its job by finding this problem. :) Brian [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=155671950608062&w=2 > Comments? > > Cheers > > > tests/generic/223 | 9 ++++++++- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/tests/generic/223 b/tests/generic/223 > index dfd8c41b..782651e2 100755 > --- a/tests/generic/223 > +++ b/tests/generic/223 > @@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ _require_xfs_io_command "falloc" > > rm -f $seqres.full > > +# Ensure we won't trick xfs allocator to disable alignment requirements > +if [ "$FSTYP" == "xfs" ]; then > + mkfs_opts="-d agsize=2g" > +else > + mkfs_opts="" > +fi > + > BLOCKSIZE=4096 > > for SUNIT_K in 8 16 32 64 128; do > @@ -41,7 +48,7 @@ for SUNIT_K in 8 16 32 64 128; do > let SUNIT_BLOCKS=$SUNIT_BYTES/$BLOCKSIZE > > echo "=== mkfs with su $SUNIT_BLOCKS blocks x 4 ===" > - export MKFS_OPTIONS="" > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$mkfs_opts > _scratch_mkfs_geom $SUNIT_BYTES 4 $BLOCKSIZE >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > _scratch_mount > > -- > 2.20.1 > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] generic 223: Ensure xfs allocator will honor alignment requirements 2019-08-27 13:38 ` Brian Foster @ 2019-08-27 15:33 ` Carlos Maiolino 2019-08-27 16:08 ` Brian Foster 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Carlos Maiolino @ 2019-08-27 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Brian Foster; +Cc: linux-xfs On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 09:38:16AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 04:47:12PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > If the files being allocated during the test do not fit into a single > > Allocation Group, XFS allocator may disable alignment requirements > > causing the test to fail even though XFS was working as expected. > > > > Fix this by fixing a min AG size, so all files created during the test > > will fit into a single AG not disabling XFS alignment requirements. > > > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com> > > --- > > > > Hi, > > > > I am tagging this patch as a RFC mostly to start a discussion here, regarding > > this issue found while running generic/223. > > > > The generic/223 fails when running it with finobt disabled. Specifically, the > > last file being fallocated are unaligned. > > > > When the finobt is enabled, the allocator does not try to squeeze partial file > > data into small available extents in AG 0, while it does when finobt is > > disabled. > > > > Here are the bmap of the same file after generic/223 finishes with and without > > finobt: > > > > finobt=0 > > > > /mnt/scratch/file-1073745920-falloc: > > EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS > > 0: [0..191]: 320..511 0 (320..511) 192 001011 > > 1: [192..375]: 64..247 0 (64..247) 184 001111 > > 2: [376..1287791]: 678400..1965815 0 (678400..1965815) 1287416 000111 > > 3: [1287792..2097159]: 1966080..2775447 1 (256..809623) 809368 000101 > > > > > > finobt=1 > > > > /mnt/scratch/file-1073745920-falloc: > > EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS > > 0: [0..1285831]: 678400..1964231 0 (678400..1964231) 1285832 000111 > > 1: [1285832..2097159]: 1966080..2777407 1 (256..811583) 811328 000101 > > > > > > I still don't know the details about why the allocator takes different decisions > > depending on finobt being used or not, although I believe it's because the extra > > space being used in each AG, and the default AG size when running the test, but > > I'm still reading the code to try to understand this difference. > > > > For reference, I think this behavior is related to a couple patches I > posted a few months ago[1]. I reproduced similar behavior after some of > extent allocation rework changes and ultimately determined that the > changes I had at the time weren't really the root cause. The commit log > for patch 1 in that series shows a straightforward example that IIRC > doesn't have anything to do with finobt either. > > > Even though I think there might be room for improvement in the XFS allocator > > code to avoid this bypass of alignment requirements here, I still think the test > > should be fixed to avoid forcing the filesystem to drop alignment constraints > > during file allocation which basically invalidate the test, and that's why I > > decided to start the discussion with a RFC patch for the test, but sending it to > > xfs list instead of fstests. > > > > The question I have is is this test doing anything a user wouldn't > expect to honor alignment? I understand that alignment is not > guaranteed, but I wouldn't expect to play that card unless the > filesystem is low on free space or aligned space in general (IIRC that's > something we check by adding the worst case alignment to the size of the > allocation request). Yeah, that's my question too. I don't know :P that's why I decide to start the thread with a patch. I also wouldn't expect the alignment requirement to be bypassed unless we are low in space, but I am not sure if that's correct or not. > > The example I had was a 1GB fallocate on an empty ~15GB/16AG fs (i.e. > allocation larger than a single AG). That is a corner case, but one I'd > expect to work. Hmm, is this the same case we spoke about? > With regard to generic/223, what is it doing in this > case to "force the filesystem to drop alignment?" I think you could make > the argument that the test needs fixing if it's doing something that > legitimately risks the ability to align allocations, but I also think > you could argue that the test has done its job by finding this problem. > :) Yeah, I am a bit confused about it. I need to understand the alloc algorithm to get a better idea on what's going on. I honestly don't know if the test did its job or if we should really expect misaligned files if the allocation request spans more than 1 AG, I should have started the thread with this question :P > > Brian > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=155671950608062&w=2 > > > Comments? > > > > Cheers > > > > > > tests/generic/223 | 9 ++++++++- > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/223 b/tests/generic/223 > > index dfd8c41b..782651e2 100755 > > --- a/tests/generic/223 > > +++ b/tests/generic/223 > > @@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ _require_xfs_io_command "falloc" > > > > rm -f $seqres.full > > > > +# Ensure we won't trick xfs allocator to disable alignment requirements > > +if [ "$FSTYP" == "xfs" ]; then > > + mkfs_opts="-d agsize=2g" > > +else > > + mkfs_opts="" > > +fi > > + > > BLOCKSIZE=4096 > > > > for SUNIT_K in 8 16 32 64 128; do > > @@ -41,7 +48,7 @@ for SUNIT_K in 8 16 32 64 128; do > > let SUNIT_BLOCKS=$SUNIT_BYTES/$BLOCKSIZE > > > > echo "=== mkfs with su $SUNIT_BLOCKS blocks x 4 ===" > > - export MKFS_OPTIONS="" > > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$mkfs_opts > > _scratch_mkfs_geom $SUNIT_BYTES 4 $BLOCKSIZE >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > _scratch_mount > > > > -- > > 2.20.1 > > -- Carlos ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH RFC] generic 223: Ensure xfs allocator will honor alignment requirements 2019-08-27 15:33 ` Carlos Maiolino @ 2019-08-27 16:08 ` Brian Foster 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: Brian Foster @ 2019-08-27 16:08 UTC (permalink / raw) To: linux-xfs On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 05:33:50PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 09:38:16AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 04:47:12PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote: > > > If the files being allocated during the test do not fit into a single > > > Allocation Group, XFS allocator may disable alignment requirements > > > causing the test to fail even though XFS was working as expected. > > > > > > Fix this by fixing a min AG size, so all files created during the test > > > will fit into a single AG not disabling XFS alignment requirements. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I am tagging this patch as a RFC mostly to start a discussion here, regarding > > > this issue found while running generic/223. > > > > > > The generic/223 fails when running it with finobt disabled. Specifically, the > > > last file being fallocated are unaligned. > > > > > > When the finobt is enabled, the allocator does not try to squeeze partial file > > > data into small available extents in AG 0, while it does when finobt is > > > disabled. > > > > > > Here are the bmap of the same file after generic/223 finishes with and without > > > finobt: > > > > > > finobt=0 > > > > > > /mnt/scratch/file-1073745920-falloc: > > > EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS > > > 0: [0..191]: 320..511 0 (320..511) 192 001011 > > > 1: [192..375]: 64..247 0 (64..247) 184 001111 > > > 2: [376..1287791]: 678400..1965815 0 (678400..1965815) 1287416 000111 > > > 3: [1287792..2097159]: 1966080..2775447 1 (256..809623) 809368 000101 > > > > > > > > > finobt=1 > > > > > > /mnt/scratch/file-1073745920-falloc: > > > EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL FLAGS > > > 0: [0..1285831]: 678400..1964231 0 (678400..1964231) 1285832 000111 > > > 1: [1285832..2097159]: 1966080..2777407 1 (256..811583) 811328 000101 > > > > > > > > > I still don't know the details about why the allocator takes different decisions > > > depending on finobt being used or not, although I believe it's because the extra > > > space being used in each AG, and the default AG size when running the test, but > > > I'm still reading the code to try to understand this difference. > > > > > > > For reference, I think this behavior is related to a couple patches I > > posted a few months ago[1]. I reproduced similar behavior after some of > > extent allocation rework changes and ultimately determined that the > > changes I had at the time weren't really the root cause. The commit log > > for patch 1 in that series shows a straightforward example that IIRC > > doesn't have anything to do with finobt either. > > > > > Even though I think there might be room for improvement in the XFS allocator > > > code to avoid this bypass of alignment requirements here, I still think the test > > > should be fixed to avoid forcing the filesystem to drop alignment constraints > > > during file allocation which basically invalidate the test, and that's why I > > > decided to start the discussion with a RFC patch for the test, but sending it to > > > xfs list instead of fstests. > > > > > > > The question I have is is this test doing anything a user wouldn't > > expect to honor alignment? I understand that alignment is not > > guaranteed, but I wouldn't expect to play that card unless the > > filesystem is low on free space or aligned space in general (IIRC that's > > something we check by adding the worst case alignment to the size of the > > allocation request). > > Yeah, that's my question too. I don't know :P that's why I decide to start the > thread with a patch. I also wouldn't expect the alignment requirement to be > bypassed unless we are low in space, but I am not sure if that's correct or not. > > > > The example I had was a 1GB fallocate on an empty ~15GB/16AG fs (i.e. > > allocation larger than a single AG). That is a corner case, but one I'd > > expect to work. > > Hmm, is this the same case we spoke about? > I think so. > > With regard to generic/223, what is it doing in this > > case to "force the filesystem to drop alignment?" I think you could make > > the argument that the test needs fixing if it's doing something that > > legitimately risks the ability to align allocations, but I also think > > you could argue that the test has done its job by finding this problem. > > :) > > Yeah, I am a bit confused about it. I need to understand the alloc algorithm to > get a better idea on what's going on. I honestly don't know if the test did its > job or if we should really expect misaligned files if the allocation request > spans more than 1 AG, I should have started the thread with this question :P > If the allocation size spans multiple AGs, we know that we'll need multiple extents by definition. Given that, I'd argue that if free space were in a state where we could easily align the same file allocation if it were broken into multiple smaller (sub-AG sized) requests by userspace, then we should probably be able to align the larger allocation when the kernel is the one that actually breaks it up. That's just my .02 though, there's always tradeoffs. :) Brian > > > > > Brian > > > > [1] https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=155671950608062&w=2 > > > > > Comments? > > > > > > Cheers > > > > > > > > > tests/generic/223 | 9 ++++++++- > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/tests/generic/223 b/tests/generic/223 > > > index dfd8c41b..782651e2 100755 > > > --- a/tests/generic/223 > > > +++ b/tests/generic/223 > > > @@ -34,6 +34,13 @@ _require_xfs_io_command "falloc" > > > > > > rm -f $seqres.full > > > > > > +# Ensure we won't trick xfs allocator to disable alignment requirements > > > +if [ "$FSTYP" == "xfs" ]; then > > > + mkfs_opts="-d agsize=2g" > > > +else > > > + mkfs_opts="" > > > +fi > > > + > > > BLOCKSIZE=4096 > > > > > > for SUNIT_K in 8 16 32 64 128; do > > > @@ -41,7 +48,7 @@ for SUNIT_K in 8 16 32 64 128; do > > > let SUNIT_BLOCKS=$SUNIT_BYTES/$BLOCKSIZE > > > > > > echo "=== mkfs with su $SUNIT_BLOCKS blocks x 4 ===" > > > - export MKFS_OPTIONS="" > > > + export MKFS_OPTIONS=$mkfs_opts > > > _scratch_mkfs_geom $SUNIT_BYTES 4 $BLOCKSIZE >> $seqres.full 2>&1 > > > _scratch_mount > > > > > > -- > > > 2.20.1 > > > > > -- > Carlos ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-08-27 16:08 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2019-08-26 14:47 [PATCH RFC] generic 223: Ensure xfs allocator will honor alignment requirements Carlos Maiolino 2019-08-27 13:38 ` Brian Foster 2019-08-27 15:33 ` Carlos Maiolino 2019-08-27 16:08 ` Brian Foster
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).