xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [RFC PATCH] xfs: borrow indirect blocks from freed extent when avail

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfs: borrow indirect blocks from freed extent when available
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:07:04 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140924233014.GB4758@dastard>
References: <1411500538-6831-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140923215816.GC4322@dastard> <20140924122746.GA53094@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140924233014.GB4758@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 09:30:14AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 08:27:46AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:58:16AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:28:58PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > xfs_bmap_del_extent() handles extent removal from the in-core and
> > > > on-disk extent lists. When removing a delalloc range, it updates the
> > > > indirect block reservation appropriately based on the removal. It
> > > > currently enforces that the new indirect block reservation is less than
> > > > or equal to the original. This is normally the case in all situations
> > > > except for when the removed range creates a hole in a single delalloc
> > > > extent, thus splitting a single delalloc extent in two.
> > > > 
> > > > The indirect block reservation is divided evenly between the two new
> > > > extents in this scenario. However, it is possible with small enough
> > > > extents to split an indlen==1 extent into two such slightly smaller
> > > > extents. This leaves one extent with 0 indirect blocks and leads to
> > > > assert failures in other areas (e.g., xfs_bunmapi() if the extent
> > > > happens to be removed).
> > > 
> > > I had long suspected we had an issue in this code, but was never
> > > able to nail down a reproducer that triggered it. Do you have a
> > > reproducer, or did you find this by reading/tracing the code?
> > > 
> > 
> > I have a setup on which fsx reproduces an instance of this within a few
> > minutes consistently. It looks like the same sequence of events each
> > occurrence so I can try to derive a more specific test case for it. I
> > suspect the right sequence of delayed allocation followed by hole
> > punching or zeroing should be able to trigger it.
> 
> *nod*
> 
> > > > Refactor xfs_bunmapi() to make the updates that must be consistent
> > > > against the inode (e.g., delalloc block counter, quota reservation)
> > > > right before the extent is deleted. Move the sb block counter update
> > > > after the extent is deleted and update xfs_bmap_del_extent() to steal
> > > > some blocks from the freed extent if a larger overall indirect
> > > > reservation is required by the extent removal.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > 
> > > > Hi all,
> > > > 
> > > > I'm seeing the following assert more frequently with fsx and the recent
> > > > xfs_free_file_space() changes (at least on 1k fsb fs'):
> > > > 
> > > > XFS: Assertion failed: startblockval(del.br_startblock) > 0, file: 
> > > > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c, line: 5281
> > > > 
> > > > This occurs for the reason described in the commit log description. This
> > > > is a quick experiment I wanted to test to verify the problem goes away
> > > > (so far, so good). Very lightly tested so far.
> > > 
> > > I suspect it's also the cause of these occasional assert failures
> > > that I see:
> > > 
> > > XFS: Assertion failed: tp->t_blk_res_used <= tp->t_blk_res, file: 
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c, line: 327
> > > 
> > > during delalloc conversion because there wasn't a space reservation
> > > for the blocks allocated (i.e. indlen was zero) and so we overrun
> > > the transaction block reservation.
> > > 
> > 
> > Interesting, I've seen this as well though I'll have to go back and see
> > where I was getting it from. I did run fsx overnight without any assert
> > failures at all, which seems rare lately. ;) I wasn't running my usual
> > parallel fsstress however. I've started that and I reproduce an instance
> > of that assert failure within a few minutes, so if related it appears
> > this might not be the only contributer. I'll look more into that one
> > next.
> 
> I knew I'd looked at this before:
> 
> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-03/msg00314.html
> 
> That got lost because I wrote it in a topic branch and not my usual
> working branch, so when I dropped the topic branch. Guilt, however,
> keeps all the patches from topic branches around, and so when I just
> did a grep for da_new across .git/patch, this showed up.
> 
> It's basically the same "steal blocks from the deleted extent
> reservation fix, and it was trying to address the above failure.
> However, there are some other details in it (like changing the
> location of delalloc accounting updates) that might be relevant.
> 

Ah, right. I thought I had seen something like this before. In fact I
had it in my head that we already did something like this when I
narrowed in on the code so I was somewhat surprised, but I didn't go
back and look through the list. That explains that. :)

This version moves the entire delalloc accounting hunk after the
xfs_bmap_del_extent() call. I think the problem with that is the sb
counter is the only record keeping that encompasses data blocks and
indirect blocks, which is why I only moved that update in xfs_bunmapi().
That's also precisely why I consider using a separate parameter rather
than updating br_blockcount.

Let me know if you wanted to resurrect this one, otherwise I'll try to
double check all of that when I get back to reworking mine...

> 
> I'm pretty sure the test case was simply something like:
> 
> xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 1m" \
>         -c "fzero 4k 8k" \
>         -c "fzero 16k 8k" \
>         -c "fzero 32k 8k" \
>         -c "fzero 64k 8k" \
>        .....
> 
> To basically split the delalloc extent repeatedly and hence drain
> the reservation.
> 

Yep, thanks. I assume you saw the test I posted:

http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-09/msg00371.html

Brian

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>