public inbox for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: Remove the duplicated and sometimes too cautious btrfs_can_relocate()
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2019 14:18:58 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <68da954b-98d0-68e2-51ff-75aade830d2c@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190718054857.8970-1-wqu@suse.com>



On 18.07.19 г. 8:48 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [BUG]
> The following script can easily cause unexpected ENOSPC:
>   umount $dev &> /dev/null
>   umount $mnt &> /dev/null
> 
>   mkfs.btrfs -b 1G -m single -d single $dev -f > /dev/null
> 
>   mount $dev $mnt -o enospc_debug
> 
>   for i in $(seq -w 0 511); do
>   	xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 1m" $mnt/inline_$i > /dev/null
>   done
>   sync
> 
>   btrfs balance start --full $mnt || return 1
>   sync
> 
>   # This will report -ENOSPC
>   btrfs balance start --full $mnt || return 1
>   umount $mnt
> 
> Also, btrfs/156 can also fail due to ENOSPC.
> 
> [CAUSE]
> The ENOSPC is reported by btrfs_can_relocate().
> 
> In btrfs_can_relocate(), it does the following check:
> - If the block group is empty
>   If empty, definitely we can relocate this block group.
> - If we are not the only block group and we have enough space
>   Then we can relocate this block group.
> 
> Above two checks are completely OK, although I could argue they doesn't
> make much sense, but the following check is vague and even sometimes
> too cautious to cause ENOSPC:
> - If we can allocate a new block group as large as current one.
>   If we failed previous two checks, we must pass this to relocate this
>   block group.

btrfs_can_relocate chunk requires min_free to be allocatable. 
min_free is defined as the used space in the  block group being 
relocated, which I think is correct. Also I find the logic which 
adjusts min_free and dev_min to also be correct. Finally the function 
checks whether the device's freespace is fragmented by trying to find a 
device chunk with the appropriate size. The question is - can we really 
have a device that has enough free space, yet is fragmented such that 
find_free_dev_extent fails which results in failing the allocation? I 
think the answer is no since we allocate in chunk granularity. What am I missing?


OTOH, in btrfs_inc_block_group_ro we only allocate a chunk if: 

a) we are changing raid profiles 
b) if inc_block_group_ro fails for our block group. 

And for b) I'm a bit puzzled as to what the code is supposed to mean. We have: 

num_bytes = cache->key.offset - cache->reserved - cache->pinned -       
                      cache->bytes_super - btrfs_block_group_used(&cache->item);  
          sinfo_used = btrfs_space_info_used(sinfo, true);                        
                                                                                  
          if (sinfo_used + num_bytes + min_allocable_bytes <=                     
              sinfo->total_bytes) {                   
//set ro

}

This means if the free space in the block group + the used space in the 
space info is smaller than the total space in 
the space info - make this block group RO. What's the rationale behind that?




  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-07-18 11:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-07-18  5:48 [PATCH] btrfs: Remove the duplicated and sometimes too cautious btrfs_can_relocate() Qu Wenruo
2019-07-18 11:16 ` Filipe Manana
2019-07-18 11:23   ` Nikolay Borisov
2019-07-18 11:35   ` Qu Wenruo
2019-07-18 11:18 ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2019-07-18 12:48   ` Qu Wenruo

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=68da954b-98d0-68e2-51ff-75aade830d2c@suse.com \
    --to=nborisov@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wqu@suse.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