From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@kernel.org>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/3] btrfs: defrag: don't try to merge regular extents with preallocated extents
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 11:26:29 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YfEv5THyUX/UoNZa@debian9.Home> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220126005850.14729-1-wqu@suse.com>
On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 08:58:48AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [BUG]
> With older kernels (before v5.16), btrfs will defrag preallocated extents.
> While with newer kernels (v5.16 and newer) btrfs will not defrag
> preallocated extents, but it will defrag the extent just before the
> preallocated extent, even it's just a single sector.
In that case, isn't a Fixes: tag missing?
>
> This can be exposed by the following small script:
>
> mkfs.btrfs -f $dev > /dev/null
>
> mount $dev $mnt
> xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 4k" -c sync -c "falloc 4k 16K" $mnt/file
> xfs_io -c "fiemap -v" $mnt/file
> btrfs fi defrag $mnt/file
> sync
> xfs_io -c "fiemap -v" $mnt/file
>
> The output looks like this on older kernels:
>
> /mnt/btrfs/file:
> EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS
> 0: [0..7]: 26624..26631 8 0x0
> 1: [8..39]: 26632..26663 32 0x801
> /mnt/btrfs/file:
> EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS
> 0: [0..39]: 26664..26703 40 0x1
>
> Which defrags the single sector along with the preallocated extent, and
> replace them with an regular extent into a new location (caused by data
> COW).
> This wastes most of the data IO just for the preallocated range.
>
> On the other hand, v5.16 is slightly better:
>
> /mnt/btrfs/file:
> EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS
> 0: [0..7]: 26624..26631 8 0x0
> 1: [8..39]: 26632..26663 32 0x801
> /mnt/btrfs/file:
> EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE TOTAL FLAGS
> 0: [0..7]: 26664..26671 8 0x0
> 1: [8..39]: 26632..26663 32 0x801
>
> The preallocated range is not defragged, but the sector before it still
> gets defragged, which has no need for it.
>
> [CAUSE]
> One of the function reused by the old and new behavior is
> defrag_check_next_extent(), it will determine if we should defrag
> current extent by checking the next one.
>
> It only checks if the next extent is a hole or inlined, but it doesn't
> check if it's preallocated.
>
> On the other hand, out of the function, both old and new kernel will
> reject preallocated extents.
>
> Such inconsistent behavior causes above behavior.
>
> [FIX]
> - Also check if next extent is preallocated
> If so, don't defrag current extent.
>
> - Add comments for each branch why we reject the extent
>
> This will reduce the IO caused by defrag ioctl and autodefrag.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
> v2:
> - Use @extent_thresh from caller to replace the harded coded threshold
> Now caller has full control over the extent threshold value.
>
> - Remove the old ambiguous check based on physical address
> The original check is too specific, only reject extents which are
> physically adjacent, AND too large.
> Since we have correct size check now, and the physically adjacent check
> is not always a win.
> So remove the old check completely.
>
> v3:
> - Split the @extent_thresh and physicall adjacent check into other
> patches
>
> - Simplify the comment
> ---
> fs/btrfs/ioctl.c | 20 +++++++++++++-------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> index 91ba2efe9792..0d8bfc716e6b 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/ioctl.c
> @@ -1053,19 +1053,25 @@ static bool defrag_check_next_extent(struct inode *inode, struct extent_map *em,
> bool locked)
> {
> struct extent_map *next;
> - bool ret = true;
> + bool ret = false;
>
> /* this is the last extent */
> if (em->start + em->len >= i_size_read(inode))
> - return false;
> + return ret;
>
> next = defrag_lookup_extent(inode, em->start + em->len, locked);
> + /* No more em or hole */
> if (!next || next->block_start >= EXTENT_MAP_LAST_BYTE)
> - ret = false;
> - else if ((em->block_start + em->block_len == next->block_start) &&
> - (em->block_len > SZ_128K && next->block_len > SZ_128K))
> - ret = false;
> -
> + goto out;
> + /* Preallocated */
> + if (test_bit(EXTENT_FLAG_PREALLOC, &em->flags))
The comment is superfluous, the name of the flag is pretty informative that
we are checking for a preallocated extent. You don't need to send a new
version just to remove the comment however.
For the Fixes: tag, you can just comment and David will pick it.
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Thanks.
> + goto out;
> + /* Physically adjacent and large enough */
> + if ((em->block_start + em->block_len == next->block_start) &&
> + (em->block_len > SZ_128K && next->block_len > SZ_128K))
> + goto out;
> + ret = true;
> +out:
> free_extent_map(next);
> return ret;
> }
> --
> 2.34.1
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-26 11:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-26 0:58 [PATCH v3 1/3] btrfs: defrag: don't try to merge regular extents with preallocated extents Qu Wenruo
2022-01-26 0:58 ` [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: defrag: use extent_thresh to replace the hardcoded size limit Qu Wenruo
2022-01-26 11:40 ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-26 12:26 ` Qu Wenruo
2022-01-26 12:36 ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-26 13:00 ` Qu Wenruo
2022-01-26 13:37 ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-26 23:57 ` Qu Wenruo
2022-01-27 10:58 ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-27 11:11 ` Forza
2022-01-26 0:58 ` [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: defrag: remove the physical adjacent extents rejection in defrag_check_next_extent() Qu Wenruo
2022-01-26 11:44 ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-26 11:26 ` Filipe Manana [this message]
2022-01-26 11:33 ` [PATCH v3 1/3] btrfs: defrag: don't try to merge regular extents with preallocated extents Qu Wenruo
2022-01-26 11:47 ` Filipe Manana
2022-01-28 6:31 ` 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=YfEv5THyUX/UoNZa@debian9.Home \
--to=fdmanana@kernel.org \
--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