After an ordered extent completes, don't blindly reset the
inode's ordered tree last accessed ordered extent pointer.
While running the xfstests I noticed that about 29% of the
time the ordered extent to which tree->last pointed was not
the same as our just completed ordered extent. After that I
ran the following sysbench test (after a prepare phase) and
noticed that about 68% of the time tree->last pointed to
a different ordered extent too.
sysbench --test=fileio --file-num=32 --file-total-size=4G \
--file-test-mode=rndwr --num-threads=512 \
--file-block-size=32768 --max-time=60 --max-requests=0 run
Therefore reset tree->last on ordered extent removal only if
it pointed to the ordered extent we're removing from the tree.
Results from 4 runs of the following test before and after
applying this patch:
$ sysbench --test=fileio --file-num=32 --file-total-size=4G \
--file-test-mode=seqwr --num-threads=512 \
--file-block-size=32768 --max-time=60 --file-io-mode=sync prepare
$ sysbench --test=fileio --file-num=32 --file-total-size=4G \
--file-test-mode=seqwr --num-threads=512 \
--file-block-size=32768 --max-time=60 --file-io-mode=sync run
Before this path:
run 1 - 64.049Mb/sec
run 2 - 63.455Mb/sec
run 3 - 64.656Mb/sec
run 4 - 63.833Mb/sec
After this patch:
run 1 - 66.149Mb/sec
run 2 - 68.459Mb/sec
run 3 - 66.338Mb/sec
run 4 - 66.176Mb/sec
With random writes (--file-test-mode=rndwr) I had huge fluctuations
on the results (+- 35% easily).
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Commit b02441999e "Btrfs: don't wait for
the completion of all the ordered extents" introduced a bug that broke
the ordered root list:
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 7119 at lib/list_debug.c:59 __list_del_entry+0x5a/0x98()
It is because we forgot to return the roots in the splice list to the
ordered list of the fs. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
In btrfs_wait_ordered_range(), if we found an extent to the left
of the start of our desired wait range and the last byte of that
extent is 1 less than the desired range's start, we would would
wait for the IO completion of that extent unnecessarily.
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
It is very likely that there are lots of ordered extents in the filesytem,
if we wait for the completion of all of them when we want to reclaim some
space for the metadata space reservation, we would be blocked for a long
time. The performance would drop down suddenly for a long time.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
A user reported a list corruption warning from btrfs_remove_ordered_extent, it
is because we aren't taking the ordered_root_lock when we remove the inode from
the ordered operations list. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
I noticed that if the free space cache has an error writing out it's data it
won't actually error out, it will just carry on. This is because it doesn't
check the return value of btrfs_wait_ordered_range, which didn't actually return
anything. So fix this in order to keep us from making free space cache look
valid when it really isnt. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
This is a left over of how we used to wait for ordered extents, which was to
grab the inode and then run filemap flush on it. However if we have an ordered
extent then we already are holding a ref on the inode, and we just use
btrfs_start_ordered_extent anyway, so there is no reason to have an extra ref on
the inode to start work on the ordered extent. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
We currently have this problem where you can truncate pages that have not yet
been written for an ordered extent. We do this because the truncate will be
coming behind to clean us up anyway so what's the harm right? Well if truncate
fails for whatever reason we leave an orphan item around for the file to be
cleaned up later. But if the user goes and truncates up the file and tries to
read from the area that had been discarded previously they will get a csum error
because we never actually wrote that data out.
This patch fixes this by allowing us to either discard the ordered extent
completely, by which I mean we just free up the space we had allocated and not
add the file extent, or adjust the length of the file extent we write. We do
this by setting the length we truncated down to in the ordered extent, and then
we set the file extent length and ram bytes to this length. The total disk
space stays unchanged since we may be compressed and we can't just chop off the
disk space, but at least this way the file extent only points to the valid data.
Then when the file extent is free'd the extent and csums will be freed normally.
This patch is needed for the next series which will give us more graceful
recovery of failed truncates. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
u64 is "unsigned long long" on all architectures now, so there's no need to
cast it when formatting it using the "ll" length modifier.
Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
I added a patch where we started taking the ordered operations mutex when we
waited on ordered extents. We need this because we splice the list and process
it, so if a flusher came in during this scenario it would think the list was
empty and we'd usually get an early ENOSPC. The problem with this is that this
lock is used in transaction committing. So we end up with something like this
Transaction commit
-> wait on writers
Delalloc flusher
-> run_ordered_operations (holds mutex)
->wait for filemap-flush to do its thing
flush task
-> cow_file_range
->wait on btrfs_join_transaction because we're commiting
some other task
-> commit_transaction because we notice trans->transaction->flush is set
-> run_ordered_operations (hang on mutex)
We need to disentangle the ordered operations flushing from the delalloc
flushing, since they are separate things. This solves the deadlock issue I was
seeing. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
Using the structure btrfs_sector_sum to keep the checksum value is
unnecessary, because the extents that btrfs_sector_sum points to are
continuous, we can find out the expected checksums by btrfs_ordered_sum's
bytenr and the offset, so we can remove btrfs_sector_sum's bytenr. After
removing bytenr, there is only one member in the structure, so it makes
no sense to keep the structure, just remove it, and use a u32 array to
store the checksum value.
By this change, we don't use the while loop to get the checksums one by
one. Now, we can get several checksum value at one time, it improved the
performance by ~74% on my SSD (31MB/s -> 54MB/s).
test command:
# dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/btrfs/file0 bs=1M count=1024 oflag=sync
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
The reason we introduce per-subvolume ordered extent list is the same
as the per-subvolume delalloc inode list.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
It is very likely that there are several blocks in bio, it is very
inefficient if we get their csums one by one. This patch improves
this problem by getting the csums in batch.
According to the result of the following test, the execute time of
__btrfs_lookup_bio_sums() is down by ~28%(300us -> 217us).
# dd if=<mnt>/file of=/dev/null bs=1M count=1024
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
We need to hold the ordered_operations mutex while waiting on ordered extents
since we splice and run the ordered extents list. We need to make sure anybody
else who wants to wait on ordered extents does actually wait for them to be
completed. This will keep us from bailing out of flushing in case somebody is
already waiting on ordered extents to complete. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Miao made the ordered operations stuff run async, which introduced a
deadlock where we could get somebody (sync) racing in and committing the
transaction while a commit was already happening. The new committer would
try and flush ordered operations which would hang waiting for the commit to
finish because it is done asynchronously and no longer inherits the callers
trans handle. To fix this we need to make the ordered operations list a per
transaction list. We can get new inodes added to the ordered operation list
by truncating them and then having another process writing to them, so this
makes it so that anybody trying to add an ordered operation _must_ start a
transaction in order to add itself to the list, which will keep new inodes
from getting added to the ordered operations list after we start committing.
This should fix the deadlock and also keeps us from doing a lot more work
than we need to during commit. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
btrfs_run_ordered_operations() needn't traverse the ordered operation list
repeatedly, it is because the transaction commiter will invoke it again when
there is no other writer in this transaction, it can ensure that no one can
add new objects into the ordered operation list.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Since we don't actually copy the extent information from the source tree in
the fast case we don't need to wait for ordered io to be completed in order
to fsync, we just need to wait for the io to be completed. So when we're
logging our file just attach all of the ordered extents to the log, and then
when the log syncs just wait for IO_DONE on the ordered extents and then
write the super. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
We specifically do not update the disk i_size if there are ordered extents
outstanding for any area between the current disk_i_size and our ordered
extent so that we do not expose stale data. The problem is the check we
have only checks if the ordered extent starts at or after the current
disk_i_size, which doesn't take into account an ordered extent that starts
before the current disk_i_size and ends past the disk_i_size. Fix this by
checking if the extent ends past the disk_i_size. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
If we have an ordered extent before the ordered extent we are currently
completing that is after the current disk_i_size we will put our i_size
update into that ordered extent so that we do not expose stale data. The
problem is that if our disk i_size is updated past the previous ordered
extent we won't update the i_size with the pending i_size update. So check
the pending i_size update and if its above the current disk i_size we need
to go ahead and try to update. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Though the process of the ordered extents is a bit different with the delalloc inode
flush, but we can see it as a subset of the delalloc inode flush, so we also handle
them by flush workers.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
The process of the ordered operations is similar to the delalloc inode flush, so
we handle them by flush workers.
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
The ordered extent allocation is in the fast path of the IO, so use a slab
to improve the speed of the allocation.
"Size of the struct is 280, so this will fall into the size-512 bucket,
giving 8 objects per page, while own slab will pack 14 objects into a page.
Another benefit I see is to check for leaked objects when the module is
removed (and the cache destroy takes place)."
-- David Sterba
Signed-off-by: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Filipe David Borba Manana
Miao Xie
Josef Bacik
chandan
Geert Uytterhoeven
Liu Bo