From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Anthony Ruhier <aruhier@mailbox.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2] btrfs: defrag: fix the wrong number of defragged sectors
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2022 15:19:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220118071904.29991-1-wqu@suse.com> (raw)
[BUG]
There are users using autodefrag mount option reporting obvious increase
in IO:
> If I compare the write average (in total, I don't have it per process)
> when taking idle periods on the same machine:
> Linux 5.16:
> without autodefrag: ~ 10KiB/s
> with autodefrag: between 1 and 2MiB/s.
>
> Linux 5.15:
> with autodefrag:~ 10KiB/s (around the same as without
> autodefrag on 5.16)
[CAUSE]
When autodefrag mount option is enabled, btrfs_defrag_file() will be
called with @max_sectors = BTRFS_DEFRAG_BATCH (1024) to limit how many
sectors we can defrag in one try.
And then use the number of sectors defragged to determine if we need to
re-defrag.
But commit b18c3ab2343d ("btrfs: defrag: introduce helper to defrag one
cluster") uses wrong unit to increase @sectors_defragged, which should
be in unit of sector, not byte.
This means, if we have defragged any sector, then @sectors_defragged
will be >= sectorsize (normally 4096), which is larger than
BTRFS_DEFRAG_BATCH.
This makes the @max_sectors check in defrag_one_cluster() to underflow,
rendering the whole @max_sectors check useless.
Thus causing way more IO for autodefrag mount options, as now there is
no limit on how many sectors can really be defragged.
[FIX]
Fix the problems by:
- Use sector as unit when increaseing @sectors_defragged
- Include @sectors_defragged > @max_sectors case to break the loop
- Add extra comment on the return value of btrfs_defrag_file()
Reported-by: Anthony Ruhier <aruhier@mailbox.org>
Fixes: b18c3ab2343d ("btrfs: defrag: introduce helper to defrag one cluster")
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
Changelog:
v2:
- Update the commit message to include the root cause of extra IO
- Keep @sectors_defragged update where it is
Since the over-reported @sectors_defragged is not the real reason,
keep the patch smaller.
---
fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 10 +++++++---
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
index 6ad2bc2e5af3..2a77273d91fe 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
@@ -1442,8 +1442,8 @@ static int defrag_one_cluster(struct btrfs_inode *inode,
list_for_each_entry(entry, &target_list, list) {
u32 range_len = entry->len;
- /* Reached the limit */
- if (max_sectors && max_sectors == *sectors_defragged)
+ /* Reached or beyond the limit */
+ if (max_sectors && *sectors_defragged >= max_sectors)
break;
if (max_sectors)
@@ -1465,7 +1465,8 @@ static int defrag_one_cluster(struct btrfs_inode *inode,
extent_thresh, newer_than, do_compress);
if (ret < 0)
break;
- *sectors_defragged += range_len;
+ *sectors_defragged += range_len >>
+ inode->root->fs_info->sectorsize_bits;
}
out:
list_for_each_entry_safe(entry, tmp, &target_list, list) {
@@ -1484,6 +1485,9 @@ static int defrag_one_cluster(struct btrfs_inode *inode,
* @newer_than: minimum transid to defrag
* @max_to_defrag: max number of sectors to be defragged, if 0, the whole inode
* will be defragged.
+ *
+ * Return <0 for error.
+ * Return >=0 for the number of sectors defragged.
*/
int btrfs_defrag_file(struct inode *inode, struct file_ra_state *ra,
struct btrfs_ioctl_defrag_range_args *range,
--
2.34.1
next reply other threads:[~2022-01-18 7:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-18 7:19 Qu Wenruo [this message]
2022-01-18 14:33 ` [PATCH v2] btrfs: defrag: fix the wrong number of defragged sectors Filipe Manana
2022-01-18 21:56 ` Anthony Ruhier
2022-01-19 17:18 ` David Sterba
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220118071904.29991-1-wqu@suse.com \
--to=wqu@suse.com \
--cc=aruhier@mailbox.org \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox