Re: [PATCH v5 2/4] btrfs: Introduce per-profile available space facility

[Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>]

On 1/9/20 2:16 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [PROBLEM]
> There are some locations in btrfs requiring accurate estimation on how
> many new bytes can be allocated on unallocated space.
> 
> We have two types of estimation:
> - Factor based calculation
>    Just use all unallocated space, divide by the profile factor
>    One obvious user is can_overcommit().
> 
> - Chunk allocator like calculation
>    This will emulate the chunk allocator behavior, to get a proper
>    estimation.
>    The only user is btrfs_calc_avail_data_space(), utilized by
>    btrfs_statfs().
>    The problem is, that function is not generic purposed enough, can't
>    handle things like RAID5/6.
> 
> Current factor based calculation can't handle the following case:
>    devid 1 unallocated:	1T
>    devid 2 unallocated:	10T
>    metadata type:	RAID1
> 
> If using factor, we can use (1T + 10T) / 2 = 5.5T free space for
> metadata.
> But in fact we can only get 1T free space, as we're limited by the
> smallest device for RAID1.
> 
> [SOLUTION]
> This patch will introduce per-profile available space calculation,
> which can give an estimation based on chunk-allocator-like behavior.
> 
> The difference between it and chunk allocator is mostly on rounding and
> [0, 1M) reserved space handling, which shouldn't cause practical impact.
> 
> The newly introduced per-profile available space calculation will
> calculate available space for each type, using chunk-allocator like
> calculation.
> 
> With that facility, for above device layout we get the full available
> space array:
>    RAID10:	0  (not enough devices)
>    RAID1:	1T
>    RAID1C3:	0  (not enough devices)
>    RAID1C4:	0  (not enough devices)
>    DUP:		5.5T
>    RAID0:	2T
>    SINGLE:	11T
>    RAID5:	1T
>    RAID6:	0  (not enough devices)
> 
> Or for a more complex example:
>    devid 1 unallocated:	1T
>    devid 2 unallocated:  1T
>    devid 3 unallocated:	10T
> 
> We will get an array of:
>    RAID10:	0  (not enough devices)
>    RAID1:	2T
>    RAID1C3:	1T
>    RAID1C4:	0  (not enough devices)
>    DUP:		6T
>    RAID0:	3T
>    SINGLE:	12T
>    RAID5:	2T
>    RAID6:	0  (not enough devices)
> 
> And for the each profile , we go chunk allocator level calculation:
> The pseudo code looks like:
> 
>    clear_virtual_used_space_of_all_rw_devices();
>    do {
>    	/*
>    	 * The same as chunk allocator, despite used space,
>    	 * we also take virtual used space into consideration.
>    	 */
>    	sort_device_with_virtual_free_space();
> 
>    	/*
>    	 * Unlike chunk allocator, we don't need to bother hole/stripe
>    	 * size, so we use the smallest device to make sure we can
>    	 * allocated as many stripes as regular chunk allocator
>    	 */
>    	stripe_size = device_with_smallest_free->avail_space;
> 	stripe_size = min(stripe_size, to_alloc / ndevs);
> 
>    	/*
>    	 * Allocate a virtual chunk, allocated virtual chunk will
>    	 * increase virtual used space, allow next iteration to
>    	 * properly emulate chunk allocator behavior.
>    	 */
>    	ret = alloc_virtual_chunk(stripe_size, &allocated_size);
>    	if (ret == 0)
>    		avail += allocated_size;
>    } while (ret == 0)
> 
> As we always select the device with least free space, the device with
> the most space will be the first to be utilized, just like chunk
> allocator.
> For above 1T + 10T device, we will allocate a 1T virtual chunk
> in the first iteration, then run out of device in next iteration.
> 
> Thus only get 1T free space for RAID1 type, just like what chunk
> allocator would do.
> 
> The patch will update such per-profile available space at the following
> timing:
> - Mount time
> - Chunk allocation
> - Chunk removal
> - Device grow
> - Device shrink
> 
> Those timing are all protected by chunk_mutex, and what we do are only
> iterating in-memory only structures, no extra IO triggered, so the
> performance impact should be pretty small.
> 
> For the extra error handling, the principle is to keep the old behavior.
> That's to say, if old error handler would just return an error, then we
> follow it.
> If the older error handler choose to abort transaction, then we follow
> it too.
> So new failure mode is introduced.
> 
> Suggested-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>

Thanks,

Josef