From: Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
To: fstests@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com, damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com,
pankydev8@gmail.com, naohiro.aota@wdc.com, gost.dev@samsung.com,
mcgrof@kernel.org, dsterba@suse.cz,
Pankaj Raghav <p.raghav@samsung.com>
Subject: [RFC 0/1] adapting btrfs/237 to work with the new reclaim algorithm
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 13:53:36 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220819115337.35681-1-p.raghav@samsung.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: CGME20220819115338eucas1p11b916296213572e97a03241ebdc399d0@eucas1p1.samsung.com
Hi ,
Since 3687fcb0752a ("btrfs: zoned: make auto-reclaim less aggressive")
commit, reclaim algorithm has been changed to trigger auto-reclaim once
the fs used size is more than a certain threshold. This change breaks
237 test.
I tried to adapt the test by doing the following:
- Write a small file first
- Write a big file that increases the disk usage to be more than the
reclaim threshold
- Delete the big file to trigger threshold
- Ensure the small file is relocated and the space used by the big file
is reclaimed.
My test case works properly for small ZNS drives but not for bigger
sized drives in QEMU. When I use a drive with a size of 100G, not all
zones that were used by the big file are correctly reclaimed.
Either I am not setting up the test correctly or there is something
wrong on how reclaim works for zoned devices.
I created a simple script to reproduce the scenario instead of running
the test. Please adapt the $DEV and $big_file_size based on the drive
size. As I am setting the bg_reclaim_threshold to be 51, $big_file_size
should be at least 51% of the drive size.
```
DEV=nvme0n3
DEV_PATH=/dev/$DEV
big_file_size=2500M
echo "mq-deadline" > /sys/block/$DEV/queue/scheduler
umount /mnt/scratch
blkzone reset $DEV_PATH
mkfs.btrfs -f -d single -m single $DEV_PATH > /dev/null; mount -t btrfs $DEV_PATH \
/mnt/scratch
uuid=$(btrfs fi show $DEV_PATH | grep 'uuid' | awk '{print $NF}')
echo "51" > /sys/fs/btrfs/$uuid/bg_reclaim_threshold
fio --filename=/mnt/scratch/test2 --size=1M --rw=write --bs=4k \
--name=btrfs_zoned > /dev/null
btrfs fi sync /mnt/scratch
echo "Open zones before big file trasfer:"
blkzone report $DEV_PATH | grep -v -e em -e nw | wc -l
fio --filename=/mnt/scratch/test1 --size=$big_file_size --rw=write --bs=4k \
--ioengine=io_uring --name=btrfs_zoned > /dev/null
btrfs fi sync /mnt/scratch
echo "Open zones before removing the file:"
blkzone report $DEV_PATH | grep -v -e em -e nw | wc -l
rm /mnt/scratch/test1
btrfs fi sync /mnt/scratch
echo "Going to sleep. Removed the file"
sleep 30
echo "Open zones after reclaim:"
blkzone report $DEV_PATH | grep -v -e em -e nw | wc -l
```
I am getting the following output in QEMU:
- 5GB ZNS drive with 128MB zone size (and cap) and it is working as
expected:
```
Open zones before big file trasfer:
4
Open zones before removing the file:
23
Going to sleep. Removed the file
Open zones after reclaim:
4
```
- 100GB ZNS drive with 128MB zone size (and cap) and it is **not
working** as expected:
```
Open zones before big file trasfer:
4
Open zones before removing the file:
455
Going to sleep. Removed the file
Open zones after reclaim:
411
```
Only partial reclaim is happening for bigger sized drives. The issue
with that is, if I do another FIO transfer, the drive spits out ENOSPC
before its actual capacity is reached as most of the zones have not been
reclaimed back and are basically in an unusable state.
Is there a limit on how many bgs can be reclaimed?
Let me know if I am doing something wrong in the test or if it is an
actual issue.
Pankaj Raghav (1):
btrfs/237: adapt the test to work with the new reclaim algorithm
tests/btrfs/237 | 80 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
--
2.25.1
next parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-19 11:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <CGME20220819115338eucas1p11b916296213572e97a03241ebdc399d0@eucas1p1.samsung.com>
2022-08-19 11:53 ` Pankaj Raghav [this message]
2022-08-19 11:53 ` [RFC 1/1] btrfs/237: adapt the test to work with the new reclaim algorithm Pankaj Raghav
2022-08-22 9:40 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-08-22 10:49 ` Pankaj Raghav
2022-08-22 12:22 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-08-22 14:29 ` [RFC 0/1] adapting btrfs/237 " Johannes Thumshirn
2022-08-23 11:46 ` Pankaj Raghav
2022-12-05 14:53 ` Pankaj Raghav
2022-12-05 16:04 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2022-12-07 16:01 ` Pankaj Raghav
2022-12-13 13:35 ` Pankaj Raghav
2022-12-05 7:56 ` Johannes Thumshirn
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=20220819115337.35681-1-p.raghav@samsung.com \
--to=p.raghav@samsung.com \
--cc=Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com \
--cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=fstests@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=gost.dev@samsung.com \
--cc=mcgrof@kernel.org \
--cc=naohiro.aota@wdc.com \
--cc=pankydev8@gmail.com \
/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