From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
To: Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com>
Cc: <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>, Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: convert to add transaction protection for btrfs send
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 18:40:24 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52EC3468.6080702@fb.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <15132D45-7C4B-41FD-A240-43BCFE314726@gmail.com>
On 01/31/2014 11:37 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hello Josef,
>
>> 在 2014-1-31,上午12:23,Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> 写道:
>>
>>> On 01/30/2014 11:20 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>>> Hello Josef,
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/30/2014 04:42 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Josef,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/29/2014 10:32 AM, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>>>>>>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I sent a patch to kick off transaction from btrfs send, however it gets
>>>>>>>> a regression that btrfs send try to search extent commit root without
>>>>>>>> transaction protection.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> To fix this regression, we have two ideas:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1. don't use extent commit root for sending.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2. add transaction protection to use extent commit root safely.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Both approaches need transaction actually, however, the first approach
>>>>>>>> will add extent tree lock contention, so we'd better adopt the second
>>>>>>>> approach.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Luckily, now we only need transaction protection when iterating
>>>>>>>> extent root, the protection's *range* is smaller than before.
>>>>>>> So what is the problem exactly? How does it show up and what are you doing to make it happen? I'd really like to kill the transaction taking completely in the send path so I'd like to know what is going wrong so we can either take the extent commit semaphore and be satisfied that is ok or come up with a different solution. Thanks,
>>>>>> See in find_extent_clone(), we have to walk backrefs while we have to search extent tree!
>>>>>> i was thinking to kick off transaction for initial full send, however, we need to consider ref links even
>>>>>> in the initial send.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is easy to trigger problems like the following steps:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # mkfs.btrfs -f /dev/sda8
>>>>>> # mount /dev/sda8 /mnt
>>>>>> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/data bs=4k count=102400 oflag=direct
>>>>>> # btrfs sub snapshot -r /mnt /mnt/snap
>>>>>> # btrfs send /mnt/snap -f /mnt/send_file &
>>>>>> # btrfs sub snapshot /mnt/snap /mnt/snap_1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Feel free to correct me if i miss something here^_^(As i sometimes made some mistakes).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ok so this is a lot of broken things, but it's not really the extent root, cause like I said before nothings going to change that matters for the snapshots bytes.
>>>>>
>>>>> What _does_ matter is the actual commit root for the actual fs root, and that requires quite a bit of manoeuvring to get right. So I'll send a patch in a few minutes when I'm happy with what I have to fix this. In the meantime would you rig this example up into an xfstest so we can make sure we don't have this problem in the future? Thanks,
>>>> I am a little confused that we don't need protect extent commit root anyway, it is really safe to search extent commit root without any transaction protection^_^….
>>>> And i am ok to send a xfstest case for this..
>>>>
>>> Sorry I didn't say that quite right. We definitely need to protect the commit root for the extent root because we could easily swap it out and then write over blocks as we search down it, which would break things. But that's not what was screwing up here, we are cow'ing the root for /mnt/snap and swapping out the commit root out from under us which is screwing us up because we end up with a different root level than what we are expecting.
>>>
>>> So we need to use extent_commit_sem anywhere we search the commit root for the extent tree, but we also need to do the same for searching the fs roots. Thanks,
> By some debugging, i found snapshots will cow src root(this is a little strange...), we need do the same thing
> for searching fs roots. Really thanks for looking into issue, and correct me, waiting for your fix.^_^ ^_^
>
Yeah I've spent all day on this and protecting the commit roots doesn't
fix it completely, just makes it harder to hit. I'm still trying to
figure out what is going on, hopefully I'll have a patch early next
week. Thanks,
Josef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-01-31 23:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-01-29 15:32 [PATCH] Btrfs: convert to add transaction protection for btrfs send Wang Shilong
2014-01-29 15:32 ` Wang Shilong
2014-01-29 19:00 ` Josef Bacik
2014-01-30 9:42 ` Wang Shilong
2014-01-30 16:08 ` Josef Bacik
2014-01-30 16:20 ` Wang Shilong
2014-01-30 16:23 ` Josef Bacik
2014-01-30 16:42 ` Wang Shilong
2014-01-31 16:37 ` Wang Shilong
2014-01-31 23:40 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2014-02-03 21:31 ` Josef Bacik
2014-02-05 8:59 ` Wang Shilong
2014-02-05 14:04 ` Josef Bacik
2014-02-05 17:23 ` Wang Shilong
2014-02-05 20:47 ` Josef Bacik
2014-02-08 3:06 ` Wang Shilong
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=52EC3468.6080702@fb.com \
--to=jbacik@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wangshilong1991@gmail.com \
--cc=wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
/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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).