Re: [PATCH 0/8] btrfs: some speedups for io tree operations and cleanups

[David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz>]

On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 07:43:24PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 7:24 PM David Sterba <dsterba@suse.cz> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 22, 2023 at 11:39:01AM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote:
> > > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
> > >
> > > These are some changes to make some io tree operations more efficient and
> > > some cleanups. More details on the changelogs.
> > >
> > > Filipe Manana (8):
> > >   btrfs: make extent state merges more efficient during insertions
> > >   btrfs: update stale comment at extent_io_tree_release()
> > >   btrfs: make wait_extent_bit() static
> > >   btrfs: remove pointless memory barrier from extent_io_tree_release()
> > >   btrfs: collapse wait_on_state() to its caller wait_extent_bit()
> > >   btrfs: make extent_io_tree_release() more efficient
> > >   btrfs: use extent_io_tree_release() to empty dirty log pages
> > >   btrfs: make sure we cache next state in find_first_extent_bit()
> >
> > I see a lot of reports like:
> >
> > btrfs/004        [16:14:23][  468.732077] run fstests btrfs/004 at 2023-09-22 16:14:24
> > [  470.921989] BTRFS: device fsid f7d57de2-899a-4b33-b77a-084058ac36e9 devid 1 transid 11 /dev/vda scanned by mount (31993)
> > [  470.926438] BTRFS info (device vda): using crc32c (crc32c-generic) checksum algorithm
> > [  470.928013] BTRFS info (device vda): using free space tree
> > [  470.952723] BTRFS info (device vda): auto enabling async discard
> > [  472.385556] BTRFS: device fsid 097a012d-8e9b-4bd8-960d-87577821cbbe devid 1 transid 6 /dev/vdb scanned by mount (32061)
> > [  472.395192] BTRFS info (device vdb): using crc32c (crc32c-generic) checksum algorithm
> > [  472.398895] BTRFS info (device vdb): using free space tree
> > [  472.438755] BTRFS info (device vdb): auto enabling async discard
> > [  472.440900] BTRFS info (device vdb): checking UUID tree
> > [  472.534254] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at fs/btrfs/extent-io-tree.c:132
> > [  472.539305] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0, pid: 32079, name: fsstress
> > [  472.542685] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
> > [  472.543641] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
> > [  472.544778] 6 locks held by fsstress/32079:
> > [  472.546916]  #0: ffff888017ad4648 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_sync_file+0x594/0xa20 [btrfs]
> > [  472.551474]  #1: ffff888014c72790 (btrfs_trans_completed){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_commit_transaction+0x840/0x1580 [btrfs]
> > [  472.556334]  #2: ffff888014c72760 (btrfs_trans_super_committed){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_commit_transaction+0x840/0x1580 [btrfs]
> > [  472.561372]  #3: ffff888014c72730 (btrfs_trans_unblocked){++++}-{0:0}, at: btrfs_commit_transaction+0x840/0x1580 [btrfs]
> > [  472.565793]  #4: ffff888014c70de0 (&fs_info->reloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_commit_transaction+0x8ed/0x1580 [btrfs]
> > [  472.569931]  #5: ffff88802ec1c248 (&tree->lock#2){+.+.}-{2:2}, at: extent_io_tree_release+0x1c/0x120 [btrfs]
> > [  472.573099] Preemption disabled at:
> > [  472.573110] [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
> > [  472.575200] CPU: 0 PID: 32079 Comm: fsstress Not tainted 6.6.0-rc2-default+ #2197
> > [  472.577440] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.16.2-3-gd478f380-rebuilt.opensuse.org 04/01/2014
> > [  472.580902] Call Trace:
> > [  472.581738]  <TASK>
> > [  472.582480]  dump_stack_lvl+0x60/0x70
> > [  472.583621]  __might_resched+0x224/0x360
> > [  472.584591]  extent_io_tree_release+0xa5/0x120 [btrfs]
> > [  472.585864]  free_log_tree+0xec/0x250 [btrfs]
> > [  472.587007]  ? walk_log_tree+0x4a0/0x4a0 [btrfs]
> > [  472.588116]  ? reacquire_held_locks+0x280/0x280
> > [  472.589104]  ? btrfs_log_holes+0x430/0x430 [btrfs]
> > [  472.590296]  ? node_tag_clear+0xf4/0x160
> > [  472.591292]  btrfs_free_log+0x2c/0x60 [btrfs]
> > [  472.592468]  commit_fs_roots+0x1e0/0x440 [btrfs]
> > [  472.593569]  ? __lock_release.isra.0+0x14e/0x510
> > [  472.594470]  ? percpu_up_read+0xe0/0xe0 [btrfs]
> > [  472.595496]  ? btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0xf6/0x180 [btrfs]
> > [  472.596758]  ? btrfs_assert_delayed_root_empty+0x2d/0xd0 [btrfs]
> > [  472.598077]  ? btrfs_commit_transaction+0x932/0x1580 [btrfs]
> > [  472.599437]  btrfs_commit_transaction+0x94e/0x1580 [btrfs]
> > [  472.600845]  ? cleanup_transaction+0x650/0x650 [btrfs]
> > [  472.602164]  ? preempt_count_sub+0x18/0xc0
> > [  472.603111]  ? __rcu_read_unlock+0x67/0x90
> > [  472.604011]  ? preempt_count_add+0x71/0xd0
> > [  472.604840]  ? preempt_count_sub+0x18/0xc0
> > [  472.605664]  ? preempt_count_add+0x71/0xd0
> > [  472.606454]  ? preempt_count_sub+0x18/0xc0
> > [  472.607251]  ? __up_write+0x125/0x300
> > [  472.608059]  btrfs_sync_file+0x794/0xa20 [btrfs]
> > [  472.609105]  ? start_ordered_ops.constprop.0+0xd0/0xd0 [btrfs]
> > [  472.610392]  ? mark_held_locks+0x1a/0x80
> > [  472.611179]  __x64_sys_fdatasync+0x70/0xb0
> > [  472.614054]  do_syscall_64+0x3d/0x90
> > [  472.614584]  entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x46/0xb0
> > [  472.615522] RIP: 0033:0x7f9bbbe983d4
> >
> >  115 void extent_io_tree_release(struct extent_io_tree *tree)
> >  116 {
> >  117         struct extent_state *state;
> >  118         struct extent_state *tmp;
> >  119
> >  120         spin_lock(&tree->lock);
> >  121         rbtree_postorder_for_each_entry_safe(state, tmp, &tree->state, rb_node) {
> >  122                 /* Clear node to keep free_extent_state() happy. */
> >  123                 RB_CLEAR_NODE(&state->rb_node);
> >  124                 ASSERT(!(state->state & EXTENT_LOCKED));
> >  125                 /*
> >  126                  * No need for a memory barrier here, as we are holding the tree
> >  127                  * lock and we only change the waitqueue while holding that lock
> >  128                  * (see wait_extent_bit()).
> >  129                  */
> >  130                 ASSERT(!waitqueue_active(&state->wq));
> >  131                 free_extent_state(state);
> >  132                 cond_resched();
> >  ^^^
> >
> > should be cond_resched_lock() as it's under spinlock but then I'm not
> > sure if relocking is still safe in the middle of the tree traversal.
> 
> cond_resched_lock() works here under the assumption that at this point no other
> tasks access the tree (as documented in an earlier patch) - if the
> assumption is broken in
> the future, then another task can access a node that was freed before
> the cond_resched_lock()
> call and result in a use-after-free or other weird issues.
> 
> But I think it's best to remove the cond_resched() call. I removed it
> and then added it again
> but didn't think properly and ran on a vm without several debugging
> configs turned on, likely
> why I didn't get that splat.
> 
> Do you want me to send a v2 with the cond_resched() line deleted?

No need to resend for that.