Re: [PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: make deduplication with range including the last block work

Filipe Manana
2020-01-07T16:18:57Z

On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 5:22 AM Zygo Blaxell
<ce3g8jdj@umail.furryterror.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 06:26:56PM +0000, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote:
> > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
> >
> > Since btrfs was migrated to use the generic VFS helpers for clone and
> > deduplication, it stopped allowing for the last block of a file to be
> > deduplicated when the source file size is not sector size aligned (when
> > eof is somewhere in the middle of the last block). There are two reasons
> > for that:
> >
> > 1) The generic code always rounds down, to a multiple of the block size,
> > the range's length for deduplications. This means we end up never
> > deduplicating the last block when the eof is not block size aligned,
> > even for the safe case where the destination range's end offset matches
> > the destination file's size. That rounding down operation is done at
> > generic_remap_check_len();
> >
> > 2) Because of that, the btrfs specific code does not expect anymore any
> > non-aligned range length's for deduplication and therefore does not
> > work if such nona-aligned length is given.
> >
> > This patch addresses that second part, and it depends on a patch that
> > fixes generic_remap_check_len(), in the VFS, which was submitted ealier
> > and has the following subject:
> >
> > "fs: allow deduplication of eof block into the end of the destination file"
> >
> > These two patches address reports from users that started seeing lower
> > deduplication rates due to the last block never being deduplicated when
> > the file size is not aligned to the filesystem's block size.
> >
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/2019-1576167349.500456@svIo.N5dq.dFFD/
> > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
>
> Should these patches be marked for stable (5.0+, but see below for
> caveats about 5.0)? The bug affects 5.3 and 5.4 which are still active,
> and dedupe is an important feature for some users.

Usually I only mark things for stable that are critical: corruptions,
crashes and memory leaks for example.
I don't think this is a critical issue, since none of those things
happen. It's certainly inconvenient to not have
an extent fully deduplicated, but it's just that.

If a maintainer wants to add it for stable, I'm fine with it.

>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 3 ++-
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> > index 3418decb9e61..c41c276ff272 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> > @@ -3237,6 +3237,7 @@ static void btrfs_double_extent_lock(struct inode *inode1, u64 loff1,
> > static int btrfs_extent_same_range(struct inode *src, u64 loff, u64 len,
> > struct inode *dst, u64 dst_loff)
> > {
> > + const u64 bs = BTRFS_I(src)->root->fs_info->sb->s_blocksize;
> > int ret;
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -3244,7 +3245,7 @@ static int btrfs_extent_same_range(struct inode *src, u64 loff, u64 len,
> > * source range to serialize with relocation.
> > */
> > btrfs_double_extent_lock(src, loff, dst, dst_loff, len);
> > - ret = btrfs_clone(src, dst, loff, len, len, dst_loff, 1);
> > + ret = btrfs_clone(src, dst, loff, len, ALIGN(len, bs), dst_loff, 1);
>
> A heads-up for anyone backporting this to 5.0: this patch depends on
>
> 57a50e2506df Btrfs: remove no longer needed range length checks for deduplication

For any kernel without that cleanup patch, backporting the first patch
in the series (the one touching only fs/read_write.c) is enough.
For any kernel with that cleanup patch, then both patches in the
series are needed.

Thanks.

>
> Simply resolving the git conflict without including 57a50e2506df produces
> a kernel where dedupe rounds the size of the dst file up to the next
> block boundary. This is because 57a50e2506df changes the value of
> "len". Before 57a50e2506df, "len" is equivalent to "ALIGN(len, bs)"
> at the btrfs_clone line; after 57a50e2506df, "len" is the unaligned
> dedupe request length passed to the btrfs_extent_same_range function.
> This changes the semantics of the btrfs_clone line significantly.
>
> 57a50e2506df is in 5.1, so 5.1+ kernels do not require any additional
> patches.
>
> 4.20 and earlier don't have the bug, so don't need a fix.
>
> > btrfs_double_extent_unlock(src, loff, dst, dst_loff, len);
> >
> > return ret;
> > --
> > 2.11.0
> >