From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 0/6] btrfs: delay compression to bbio submission time
Date: Sat, 16 May 2026 13:15:13 +0930 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <cover.1778902677.git.wqu@suse.com> (raw)
[CHANGELOG]
v2:
- Rebased to the latest for-next branch
Several minor conflicts:
* The removal of folio ordered flag
* The refactor of btrfs_mod_oustanding_extents()
- Fix a random failure in btrfs/260
It turns out that the original filemap_flush() only triggers writeback
of dirty pages, but since our new compression happens after the bios
are submitted, there can be a race between inode->defrag_compression
clearing and compression path reading inode->defrag_compression.
This can cause btrfs to use the mount option other than the specified
defrag compression algo to do the compression.
Fix it by using filemap_write_and_wait_range(), which also avoids the
quirky double flush behavior.
- Fix a use-after-free bug where bio->bi_status is accessed after
bio_put()
- Remove a mapping_set_error() call when try_submit_compressed() failed
As we still have uncompressed fallback, we should not set the mapping
as error.
- Drop all allocated OEs along with the extent maps when
run_delalloc_delayed() failed
- Slightly reword the cover letter
PoC->v1:
- Fix the ordered extent leak caused by incorrect ref count of child OEs
- Fix the reserved space leakage in ranges without a real OE
- Fix the hang caused by incorrect extent lock/unlock pair
All exposed by fsstress runs
- Fix the OE range check in btrfs_wait_ordered_extents() that affects
snapshot creation
All exposed by fstests runs
[BACKGROUND]
Btrfs currently goes with async submission for compressed write, I'll go
the following example to explain the async submission:
The page and fs block sizes are all 4K, no large folio involved.
The dirty range is [0, 4K), [8K, 128K).
0 4K 8K 128K
|//| |/////////////////////////////////////////|
- Write back folio 0
No compression.
* New OE for [0, 4K)
* Submit bbio for [0, 4K)
- Write back folio 8K
* Delayed compression/OE creation into a workqueue
All folios in range [8K, 128K) is still locked.
* Skip submission
- Write back folios at range [12K, 128K)
* Wait for the folio to be unlocked.
As the folio is only unlocked after the compression is done.
* Skip submission
As the folio is no longer dirty.
[PROBLEMS]
The async submission has the following problems:
- Non-sequential writeback
Especially when large folios are involved, we can have some blocks
submitted immediately (uncompressed), and some submitted later
(compressed).
That breaks the assumption of iomap and DONTCACHE writes, which
requires all blocks inside a folio to be submitted in one go.
- Not really async
As the example given above, we keep the whole range locked during
compression.
This means if we want to read a cached folio in that range, we still
need to wait for the compression.
[DELAYED COMPRESSION]
The new idea is to delay the compression at bbio submission time.
Now the workflow will be:
- Write back folio 0
No compression, the same as the old code.
* New OE for [0, 4K)
* Submit bbio for [0, 4K)
- Write back folio 8K
* New OE for [8K, 128K)
This new OE has a delayed flag, without a real data extent backing
it.
Then the folio range [12K, 128K) is unlocked, just like the the
uncompressed writes.
* Queue the folio into a bbio
- Writeback folio 12K ~ 124K
* No new OE
The existing delayed OE [8K, 128K) is already there.
* Queue the folio into a bbio.
* Submit the bbio
As we have reached the OE end.
- Delayed bbio submission
As the bbio has a special @is_delayed flag set, it will not be
submitted directly, but queued into a workqueue for compression.
* Compression in the workqueue
As we do not want to delay the writeback of the remaining folios.
Thus the compression should be done inside a workqueue.
* Real delalloc
Now an on-disk extent is reserved. The real EM will replace the
delayed one.
And the real OE will be added as a child of the original delayed
one.
* Compressed data submission
* Delayed bbio finish
When all child compressed/uncompressed writes finished, the delayed
bbio will finish.
The full delayed OE is also finished, which will insert all of its
child OEs into the subvolume tree.
This solves both the problems mentioned above, but is definitely more
complex than the current async submission:
- An OE no longer represents an allocated extent
As we will have delayed OEs, which have no allocated space backing it.
Thankfully this is not a huge deal. At ordered extent finish time, we
just need to skip any reserved space handling for an delayed OE range
that doesn't have a real OE covering it.
- Layered OEs
And we need to manage the child/parent OEs properly
But still it brings the minimal amount of changes to the existing OE
users, and keep the scheme that every block going through
extent_writepage_io() has a corresponding OE.
The other solution to layered OEs is, to split OE at the real OE
allocation time.
But that has more corner cases than I thought:
* The new real OE is exactly the same size as the delayed OE
We need to either completely replace the delayed OE with the new
real one, or copy the members from the real OE into the existing
one.
Either way, there will be a OE that needs to be put, and skip all
the per-root OE tracking.
Also need to properly handling the OE waiting behavior for the
remaining one in the ordered tree.
* The new real OE is at the middle of a delayed OE
This is a corner case but can happen.
In that case we need to allocate a new OE to fill the tailing part,
and that new OE will also need to be added to the per-root OE list,
with proper flags inherited from the old OE.
All my local attempts to go that path, not only leads to more code
but more error handling and very tricky OE splits.
So I'm afraid the layered OE solution is complex, but less complex
than the alternavive OE splitting method.
At least for now, when only compressed writes are delayed, the layer
solution still seems to be simpler.
It may change in the future if we also want to go delayed writes for
non-compressed writes.
But I hope we can simplify the code before that future.
- Possible extra split
Since the delayed OE is allocated first, we can still submit two
different delayed bbio for the same OE.
This means we can have two smaller compressed extents compared to one,
which may reduce the compression ratio.
- More complex error handling
We need to handle cases where some part of the delayed OE has no child
one. In that case we need to manually release the reserved data/meta
space.
Qu Wenruo (6):
btrfs: add skeleton for delayed btrfs bio
btrfs: add delayed ordered extent support
btrfs: introduce the skeleton of delayed bbio endio function
btrfs: introduce compression for delayed bbio
btrfs: implement uncompressed fallback for delayed bbio
btrfs: enable experimental delayed compression support
fs/btrfs/bio.c | 1 +
fs/btrfs/bio.h | 3 +
fs/btrfs/btrfs_inode.h | 3 +
fs/btrfs/defrag.c | 26 ++-
fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 34 ++-
fs/btrfs/extent_map.h | 9 +-
fs/btrfs/inode.c | 493 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c | 178 +++++++++++----
fs/btrfs/ordered-data.h | 14 ++
9 files changed, 703 insertions(+), 58 deletions(-)
--
2.54.0
next reply other threads:[~2026-05-16 3:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-16 3:45 Qu Wenruo [this message]
2026-05-16 3:45 ` [PATCH v2 1/6] btrfs: add skeleton for delayed btrfs bio Qu Wenruo
2026-05-16 3:45 ` [PATCH v2 2/6] btrfs: add delayed ordered extent support Qu Wenruo
2026-05-16 3:45 ` [PATCH v2 3/6] btrfs: introduce the skeleton of delayed bbio endio function Qu Wenruo
2026-05-16 3:45 ` [PATCH v2 4/6] btrfs: introduce compression for delayed bbio Qu Wenruo
2026-05-16 3:45 ` [PATCH v2 5/6] btrfs: implement uncompressed fallback " Qu Wenruo
2026-05-16 3:45 ` [PATCH v2 6/6] btrfs: enable experimental delayed compression support 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=cover.1778902677.git.wqu@suse.com \
--to=wqu@suse.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