Re: [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: volumes: Allocate degraded chunks if rw devices can't fullfil a chunk

Anand Jain
2019-11-19T10:08:36Z

On 11/7/19 2:27 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [PROBLEM]
> Btrfs degraded mount will fallback to SINGLE profile if there are not
> enough devices:

Its better to keep it like this for now until there is a fix for the
write hole. Otherwise hitting the write hole bug in case of degraded
raid1 will be more prevalent.

I proposed a RFC a long time before [1] (also in there, there
is a commit id which turned the degraded raid1 profile into single
profile (without much write-up on it)).

[1] [PATCH 0/2] [RFC] btrfs: create degraded-RAID1 chunks

Similarly the patch related to the reappearing missing device [2]
falls under the same category. Will push for the integration after
the write hole fix.

[2] [PATCH] btrfs: handle dynamically reappearing missing device
(test case 154).

If you look close enough the original author has quite nicely made
sure write hole bug will be very difficultly to hit. These fixes
shall make it easy to hit. So its better to work on the write hole
first.

I am trying to fix write hole. First attempt has limited success
(works fine in two disk raid1 only). Now trying other ways to fix.

> # mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/test/scratch[12] -m raid1 -d raid1
> # wipefs -fa /dev/test/scratch2
> # mount -o degraded /dev/test/scratch1 /mnt/btrfs
> # fallocate -l 1G /mnt/btrfs/foobar
> # btrfs ins dump-tree -t chunk /dev/test/scratch1
> item 7 key (FIRST_CHUNK_TREE CHUNK_ITEM 1674575872) itemoff 15511 itemsize 80
> length 536870912 owner 2 stripe_len 65536 type DATA
> New data chunk will fallback to SINGLE.
>
> If user doesn't balance those SINGLE chunks, even with missing devices
> replaced, the fs is no longer full RAID1, and a missing device can break
> the tolerance.

As its been discussed quite a lot of time before, the current
re-silver/recovery approach for degraded-raid1 (with offload to Single)
requires balance. Its kind of known.

Thanks, Anand

> [CAUSE]
> The cause is pretty simple, when mounted degraded, missing devices can't
> be used for chunk allocation.
> Thus btrfs has to fall back to SINGLE profile.
>
> [ENHANCEMENT]
> To avoid such problem, this patch will:
> - Make all profiler reducer/updater to consider missing devices as part
> of num_devices
> - Make chunk allocator to fallback to missing_list as last resort
>
> If we have enough rw_devices, then go regular chunk allocation code.

> This can avoid allocating degraded chunks.
> E.g. for 3 devices RAID1 degraded mount, we will use the 2 existing
> devices to allocate chunk, avoid degraded chunk.

> But if we don't have enough rw_devices, then we check missing devices to
> allocate degraded chunks.
> E.g. for 2 devices RAID1 degraded mount, we have to allocate degraded
> chunks to keep the RAID1 profile.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 10 +++++++---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> index bf7e3f23bba7..1686fd31679b 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
> @@ -52,11 +52,13 @@ static u64 get_restripe_target(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 flags)
> */
> static u64 btrfs_reduce_alloc_profile(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 flags)
> {
> - u64 num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices;
> + u64 num_devices;
> u64 target;
> u64 raid_type;
> u64 allowed = 0;
>
> + num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices +
> + fs_info->fs_devices->missing_devices;
> /*
> * See if restripe for this chunk_type is in progress, if so try to
> * reduce to the target profile
> @@ -1986,7 +1988,8 @@ static u64 update_block_group_flags(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 flags)
> if (stripped)
> return extended_to_chunk(stripped);
>
> - num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices;
> + num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices +
> + fs_info->fs_devices->missing_devices;
>
> stripped = BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID0 | BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID56_MASK |
> BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID1_MASK | BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID10;
> @@ -2981,7 +2984,8 @@ static u64 get_profile_num_devs(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 type)
>
> num_dev = btrfs_raid_array[btrfs_bg_flags_to_raid_index(type)].devs_max;
> if (!num_dev)
> - num_dev = fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices;
> + num_dev = fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices +
> + fs_info->fs_devices->missing_devices;
>
> return num_dev;
> }
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index a462d8de5d2a..4dee1974ceb7 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -5052,8 +5052,9 @@ static int __btrfs_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> max_chunk_size = min(div_factor(fs_devices->total_rw_bytes, 1),
> max_chunk_size);
>
> - devices_info = kcalloc(fs_devices->rw_devices, sizeof(*devices_info),
> - GFP_NOFS);
> + devices_info = kcalloc(fs_devices->rw_devices +
> + fs_devices->missing_devices,
> + sizeof(*devices_info), GFP_NOFS);
> if (!devices_info)
> return -ENOMEM;
>
> @@ -5067,7 +5068,18 @@ static int __btrfs_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> max_stripe_size, dev_stripes);
> if (ret < 0)
> goto error;
> -
> + /*
> + * If rw devices can't fullfil the request, fallback to missing devices
> + * as last resort.
> + */
> + if (ndevs < devs_min) {
> + ret = gather_dev_holes(info, devices_info + ndevs, &ndevs,
> + &fs_devices->missing_list,
> + fs_devices->missing_devices,
> + max_stripe_size, dev_stripes);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + goto error;
> + }
> /*
> * now sort the devices by hole size / available space
> */
>