public inbox for linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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
> 

  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