Re: [PATCH 0/5] Deal with a few ENOSPC corner cases

Nikolay Borisov
2020-03-13T12:37:56Z

On 11.03.20 г. 3:45 ч., David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 07:28:03PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> On 9.03.20 г. 22:23 ч., Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> Nikolay has been digging into a failure of generic/320 on ppc64. This has
>>> shaken out a variety of issues, and he's done a good job at running all of the
>>> weird corners down and then testing my ideas to get them all fixed. This is the
>>> series that has survived the longest, so we're declaring victory.
>>>
>>> First there is the global reserve stealing logic. The way unlink works is it
>>> attempts to start a transaction with a normal reservation amount, and if this
>>> fails with ENOSPC we fall back to stealing from the global reserve. This is
>>> problematic because of all the same reasons we had with previous iterations of
>>> the ENOSPC handling, thundering herd. We get a bunch of failures all at once,
>>> everybody tries to allocate from the global reserve, some win and some lose, we
>>> get an ENSOPC.
>>>
>>> To fix this we need to integrate this logic into the normal ENOSPC
>>> infrastructure. The idea is simple, we add a new flushing state that indicates
>>> we are allowed to steal from the global reserve. We still go through all of the
>>> normal flushing work, and at the moment we begin to fail all the tickets we try
>>> to satisfy any tickets that are allowed to steal by stealing from the global
>>> reserve. If this works we start the flushing system over again just like we
>>> would with a normal ticket satisfaction. This serializes our global reserve
>>> stealing, so we don't have the thundering herd problem
>>>
>>> This isn't the only problem however. Nikolay also noticed that we would
>>> sometimes have huge amounts of space in the trans block rsv and we would ENOSPC
>>> out. This is because the may_commit_transaction() logic didn't take into
>>> account the space that would be reclaimed by all of the outstanding trans
>>> handles being required to stop in order to commit the transaction.
>>>
>>> Another corner here was that priority tickets could race in and make
>>> may_commit_transaction() think that it had no work left to do, and thus not
>>> commit the transaction.
>>>
>>> Those fixes all address the failures that Nikolay was seeing. The last two
>>> patches are just cleanups around how we handle priority tickets. We shouldn't
>>> even be serializing priority tickets behind normal tickets, only behind other
>>> priority tickets. And finally there would be a small window where priority
>>> tickets would fail out if there were multiple priority tickets and one of them
>>> failed. This is addressed by the previous patch.
>>>
>>> Nikolay has put these through many iterations of generic/320, and so far it
>>> hasn't failed. Thanks,
>>>
>>> Josef
>>>
>>
>> This patchset causes regressions on following tests:
>>
>> btrfs/132 btrfs/170 btrfs/177 generic/102 generic/103 generic/170
>> generic/172 generic/275 generic/299 generic/464 generic/551
>>
>> Please don't merge for now.
>
> Thanks for letting me know, space handling fixes could always use longer
> period of testing. At this point we're getting close to pre merge window
> freeze so I'd be more nervous merging it now.
>

After further testing I stand corrected: The above patches themselves do
not introduce a regression in aforementioned patches, the real culprit
is "btrfs: do not account global reserve in can_overcommit". From that
PoV those patches are ok.