Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] btrfs: Introduce per-profile available space facility

Qu WenRuo
2020-01-08T23:53:48Z

On 2020/1/8 下午11:04, David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 10:13:43AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>> + devices_info = kcalloc(fs_devices->rw_devices, sizeof(*devices_info),
>>>> + GFP_NOFS);
>>>
>>> Calling kcalloc is another potential slowdown, for the statfs
>>> considerations.
>>
>> That's also what we did in statfs() before, so it shouldn't cause extra
>> problem.
>> Furthermore, we didn't use calc_one_profile_avail() directly in statfs()
>> directly.
>>
>> Although I get your point, and personally speaking the memory allocation
>> and extra in-memory device iteration should be pretty fast compared to
>> __btrfs_alloc_chunk().
>>
>> Thus I don't think this memory allocation would cause extra trouble,
>> except the error handling mentioned below.
>
> Right, current statfs also does allocation via
> btrfs_calc_avail_data_space, so it's the same as before.
>
>> [...]
>>>> + ret = calc_per_profile_avail(fs_info);
>>>
>>> Adding new failure modes
>>
>> Another solution I have tried is make calc_per_profile_avail() return
>> void, ignoring the ENOMEM error, and just set the affected profile to 0
>> available space.
>>
>> But that method is just delaying ENOMEM, and would cause strange
>> pre-profile values until next successful update or mount cycle.
>>
>> Any idea on which method is less worse?
>
> Better to return the error than wrong values in this case. As the
> numbers are sort of a cache and the mount cycle to get them fixed is not
> very user friendly, we need some other way. As this is a global state, a
> bit in fs_info::flags can be set and full recalculation attempted at
> some point until it succeeds. This would leave the counters stale for
> some time but I think still better than if they're suddenly 0.
>
If can_over_commit() is the only user of this facility, then either an
extra indicator or sudden 0 is no problem.
As in that case, we just don't over-commit and do extra flush to free
meta space.

But when statfs() is going to use this facility, either sudden 0 nor
indicator is good.
Just image seconds before, we still have several TiB free space, and all
of a sudden, just several GiB free (from allocated data chunks).

User will definitely complain.

Thus I still prefer proper error handling, as when we're low on memory,
a lot of things can go wrong anyway.

Thanks,
Qu