From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@kernel.org>
To: Zygo Blaxell <ce3g8jdj@umail.furryterror.org>
Cc: linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
xfs <linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: make deduplication with range including the last block work
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2020 16:18:42 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAL3q7H5FcdsA3NEcRae4iE5k8j8tHe-3KjKo_tTg6=fu0c_0gw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20191229052240.GG13306@hungrycats.org>
On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:22 AM Zygo Blaxell
<ce3g8jdj@umail.furryterror.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 06:26:56PM +0000, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
> >
> > Since btrfs was migrated to use the generic VFS helpers for clone and
> > deduplication, it stopped allowing for the last block of a file to be
> > deduplicated when the source file size is not sector size aligned (when
> > eof is somewhere in the middle of the last block). There are two reasons
> > for that:
> >
> > 1) The generic code always rounds down, to a multiple of the block size,
> > the range's length for deduplications. This means we end up never
> > deduplicating the last block when the eof is not block size aligned,
> > even for the safe case where the destination range's end offset matches
> > the destination file's size. That rounding down operation is done at
> > generic_remap_check_len();
> >
> > 2) Because of that, the btrfs specific code does not expect anymore any
> > non-aligned range length's for deduplication and therefore does not
> > work if such nona-aligned length is given.
> >
> > This patch addresses that second part, and it depends on a patch that
> > fixes generic_remap_check_len(), in the VFS, which was submitted ealier
> > and has the following subject:
> >
> > "fs: allow deduplication of eof block into the end of the destination file"
> >
> > These two patches address reports from users that started seeing lower
> > deduplication rates due to the last block never being deduplicated when
> > the file size is not aligned to the filesystem's block size.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/2019-1576167349.500456@svIo.N5dq.dFFD/
> > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
>
> Should these patches be marked for stable (5.0+, but see below for
> caveats about 5.0)? The bug affects 5.3 and 5.4 which are still active,
> and dedupe is an important feature for some users.
Usually I only mark things for stable that are critical: corruptions,
crashes and memory leaks for example.
I don't think this is a critical issue, since none of those things
happen. It's certainly inconvenient to not have
an extent fully deduplicated, but it's just that.
If a maintainer wants to add it for stable, I'm fine with it.
>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> > index 3418decb9e61..c41c276ff272 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> > @@ -3237,6 +3237,7 @@ static void btrfs_double_extent_lock(struct inode *inode1, u64 loff1,
> > static int btrfs_extent_same_range(struct inode *src, u64 loff, u64 len,
> > struct inode *dst, u64 dst_loff)
> > {
> > + const u64 bs = BTRFS_I(src)->root->fs_info->sb->s_blocksize;
> > int ret;
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -3244,7 +3245,7 @@ static int btrfs_extent_same_range(struct inode *src, u64 loff, u64 len,
> > * source range to serialize with relocation.
> > */
> > btrfs_double_extent_lock(src, loff, dst, dst_loff, len);
> > - ret = btrfs_clone(src, dst, loff, len, len, dst_loff, 1);
> > + ret = btrfs_clone(src, dst, loff, len, ALIGN(len, bs), dst_loff, 1);
>
> A heads-up for anyone backporting this to 5.0: this patch depends on
>
> 57a50e2506df Btrfs: remove no longer needed range length checks for deduplication
For any kernel without that cleanup patch, backporting the first patch
in the series (the one touching only fs/read_write.c) is enough.
For any kernel with that cleanup patch, then both patches in the
series are needed.
Thanks.
>
> Simply resolving the git conflict without including 57a50e2506df produces
> a kernel where dedupe rounds the size of the dst file up to the next
> block boundary. This is because 57a50e2506df changes the value of
> "len". Before 57a50e2506df, "len" is equivalent to "ALIGN(len, bs)"
> at the btrfs_clone line; after 57a50e2506df, "len" is the unaligned
> dedupe request length passed to the btrfs_extent_same_range function.
> This changes the semantics of the btrfs_clone line significantly.
>
> 57a50e2506df is in 5.1, so 5.1+ kernels do not require any additional
> patches.
>
> 4.20 and earlier don't have the bug, so don't need a fix.
>
> > btrfs_double_extent_unlock(src, loff, dst, dst_loff, len);
> >
> > return ret;
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-07 16:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-16 18:26 [PATCH 0/2] Allow deduplication of the eof block when it is safe to do so fdmanana
2019-12-16 18:26 ` [PATCH 1/2] fs: allow deduplication of eof block into the end of the destination file fdmanana
2019-12-17 15:52 ` Josef Bacik
2020-01-07 16:23 ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-07 17:57 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-01-08 11:36 ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-08 16:15 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-01-09 19:00 ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-09 19:12 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-01-14 14:36 ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-22 0:35 ` Darrick J. Wong
2020-01-22 12:38 ` David Sterba
2019-12-16 18:26 ` [PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: make deduplication with range including the last block work fdmanana
2019-12-17 15:54 ` Josef Bacik
2019-12-29 5:22 ` Zygo Blaxell
2020-01-07 16:18 ` Filipe Manana [this message]
2020-01-07 18:16 ` Zygo Blaxell
2020-01-08 11:42 ` Filipe Manana
2020-01-08 14:53 ` David Sterba
2020-01-23 17:37 ` [PATCH 0/2] Allow deduplication of the eof block when it is safe to do so David Sterba
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='CAL3q7H5FcdsA3NEcRae4iE5k8j8tHe-3KjKo_tTg6=fu0c_0gw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=fdmanana@kernel.org \
--cc=ce3g8jdj@umail.furryterror.org \
--cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
--cc=fdmanana@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).