Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] btrfs: Introduce new incompat feature SKINNY_BG_TREE to hugely reduce mount time

[Qu WenRuo <wqu@suse.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5002 bytes --]



On 2019/11/4 下午8:03, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> This patchset can be fetched from:
> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/skinny_bg_tree
> Which is based on david/for-next-20191024 branch.
> 
> This patchset will hugely reduce mount time of large fs by putting all
> block group items into its own tree, and further compact the block group
> item design to take full usage of btrfs_key.
> 
> The old behavior will try to read out all block group items at mount
> time, however due to the key of block group items are scattered across
> tons of extent items, we must call btrfs_search_slot() for each block
> group.
> 
> It works fine for small fs, but when number of block groups goes beyond
> 200, such tree search will become a random read, causing obvious slow
> down.
> 
> On the other hand, btrfs_read_chunk_tree() is still very fast, since we
> put CHUNK_ITEMS into their own tree and package them next to each other.
> 
> Following this idea, we could do the same thing for block group items,
> so instead of triggering btrfs_search_slot() for each block group, we
> just call btrfs_next_item() and under most case we could finish in
> memory, and hugely speed up mount (see BENCHMARK below).
> 
> The only disadvantage is, this method introduce an incompatible feature,
> so existing fs can't use this feature directly.
> This can be improved to RO compatible, as long as btrfs can go skip_bg
> automatically (another patchset needed)
> 
> Either specify it at mkfs time, or use btrfs-progs offline convert tool.
> 
> [[Benchmark]]
> Since I have upgraded my rig to all NVME storage, there is no HDD
> test result.
> 
> Physical device:	NVMe SSD
> VM device:		VirtIO block device, backup by sparse file
> Nodesize:		4K  (to bump up tree height)
> Extent data size:	4M
> Fs size used:		1T
> 
> All file extents on disk is in 4M size, preallocated to reduce space usage
> (as the VM uses loopback block device backed by sparse file)
> 
> Without patchset:
> Use ftrace function graph:
> 
>  7)               |  open_ctree [btrfs]() {
>  7)               |    btrfs_read_block_groups [btrfs]() {
>  7) @ 805851.8 us |    }
>  7) @ 911890.2 us |  }
> 
>  btrfs_read_block_groups() takes 88% of the total mount time,
> 
> With patchset, and use -O skinny-bg-tree mkfs option:
> 
>  5)               |  open_ctree [btrfs]() {
>  5)               |    btrfs_read_block_groups [btrfs]() {
>  5) * 63395.75 us |    }
>  5) @ 143106.9 us |  }
> 
>   open_ctree() time is only 15% of original mount time.
>   And btrfs_read_block_groups() only takes 7% of total open_ctree()
>   execution time.
> 
> The reason is pretty obvious when considering how many tree blocks needs
> to be read from disk:
> 
>           |  Extent tree  |  Regular bg tree |  Skinny bg tree  |
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>   nodes   |            55 |                1 |                1 |
>   leaves  |          1025 |               13 |                7 |
>   total   |          1080 |               14 |                8 |
> Not to mention all the tree blocks readahead works pretty fine for bg
> tree, as we will read every item.
> While readahead for extent tree will just be a diaster, as all block
> groups are scatter across the whole extent tree.
> 
> Changelog:
> (v2~v3 are all original bg-tree design)
> v2:
> - Rebase to v5.4-rc1
>   Minor conflicts due to code moved to block-group.c
> - Fix a bug where some block groups will not be loaded at mount time
>   It's a bug in that refactor patch, not exposed by previous round of
>   tests.
> - Add a new patch to remove a dead check
> - Update benchmark to NVMe based result
>   Hardware upgrade is not always a good thing for benchmark.
> 
> v3:
> - Add a separate patch to fix possible memory leak
> - Add Reviewed-by tag for the refactor patch
> - Reword the refactor patch to mention the change of use
>   btrfs_fs_incompat()
> 
> RFC:
> - Make bg-tree to use global rsv space.
> - Explore the skinny-bg-tree design.
> 

Forgot the reason for RFC:

I don't know if the tradeoff is that good enough for all the extra trouble.

If we compare all the needed unique tree blocks, it's indeed an
impressive 0.74% of original extent tree, but only 57% reduction of
regular bg tree.

So any feedback is welcomed.

Thanks,
Qu

> Qu Wenruo (2):
>   btrfs: block-group: Refactor btrfs_read_block_groups()
>   btrfs: Introduce new incompat feature, SKINNY_BG_TREE, to further
>     reduce mount time
> 
>  fs/btrfs/block-group.c          | 462 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>  fs/btrfs/block-rsv.c            |   2 +
>  fs/btrfs/ctree.h                |   5 +-
>  fs/btrfs/disk-io.c              |  14 +
>  fs/btrfs/sysfs.c                |   2 +
>  include/uapi/linux/btrfs.h      |   1 +
>  include/uapi/linux/btrfs_tree.h |  11 +
>  7 files changed, 342 insertions(+), 155 deletions(-)
> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]