From: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: avoid GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures during endio
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2022 10:00:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1665755095.git.josef@toxicpanda.com> (raw)
Hello,
As you can imagine we have workloads that don't behave super well sometimes, and
they'll OOM the box in a really spectacular fashion. Sometimes these trip the
BUG_ON(!prealloc) things inside of the extent io tree code.
We've talked about switching these allocations to mempools for a while, but
that's going to require some extra work. We can drastically reduce the
likelihood of failing these allocations by simply dropping the tree lock and
attempting to make the allocation with the original gfp_mask.
The main problem with that approach is we've been using GFP_ATOMIC in the endio
path for....reasons? I *think* the read endio work used to happen in IRQ
context, but it hasn't for at least a decade, and in fact if we get read
failures we do our failrec allocations with GFP_NOFS, so clearly GFP_ATOMIC
isn't really required in this path.
So kill the GFP_ATOMIC allocations in the endio path, which is where we see
these panics, and then change the extent io code to simply do the loop again if
it can't allocate the prealloc extent with GFP_ATOMIC so we can make the
allocation with the callers gfp_mask.
This is perfectly safe, we'll drop the tree lock and loop around any time we
have to re-search the tree after modifying part of our range, we don't need to
hold the lock for our entire operation.
The only drawback here is that we could infinite loop if we can't make our
allocation. This is why a mempool would be the proper solution, as we can't
fail these allocations without brining the box down, which is what we currently
do anyway.
Josef
Josef Bacik (3):
btrfs: do not use GFP_ATOMIC in the read endio
btrfs: remove unlock_extent_atomic
btrfs: do not panic if we can't allocate a prealloc extent state
fs/btrfs/extent-io-tree.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
fs/btrfs/extent-io-tree.h | 7 -------
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 8 ++++----
3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
--
2.26.3
next reply other threads:[~2022-10-14 14:02 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-10-14 14:00 Josef Bacik [this message]
2022-10-14 14:00 ` [PATCH 1/3] btrfs: do not use GFP_ATOMIC in the read endio Josef Bacik
2022-10-14 14:00 ` [PATCH 2/3] btrfs: remove unlock_extent_atomic Josef Bacik
2022-10-14 14:00 ` [PATCH 3/3] btrfs: do not panic if we can't allocate a prealloc extent state Josef Bacik
2022-10-18 12:52 ` David Sterba
2022-10-17 14:25 ` [PATCH 0/3] btrfs: avoid GFP_ATOMIC allocation failures during endio David Sterba
2022-10-17 18:08 ` Josef Bacik
2022-10-18 12:42 ` David Sterba
2022-10-18 14:26 ` Josef Bacik
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=cover.1665755095.git.josef@toxicpanda.com \
--to=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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).