Re: [RFC] ext4: Add pollable sysfs entry for block threshold events

Lukáš Czerner
2015-03-11T17:49:54Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 8233 bytes --]

On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, Beata Michalska wrote:

> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 17:45:52 +0100
> From: Beata Michalska <b.michalska@samsung.com>
> To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
> Cc: tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com
> Subject: Re: [RFC] ext4: Add pollable sysfs entry for block threshold events
>
> Hi,
>
> On 03/11/2015 03:12 PM, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> > On Wed, 11 Mar 2015, Beata Michalska wrote:
> >
> >> Date: Wed, 11 Mar 2015 11:16:33 +0100
> >> From: Beata Michalska <b.michalska@samsung.com>
> >> To: tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca
> >> Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
> >> kyungmin.park@samsung.com
> >> Subject: [RFC] ext4: Add pollable sysfs entry for block threshold events
> >>
> >> Add support for pollable sysfs entry for logical blocks
> >> threshold, allowing the userspace to wait for
> >> the notification whenever the threshold is reached
> >> instead of periodically calling the statfs.
> >> This is supposed to work as a single-shot notifiaction
> >> to reduce the number of triggered events.
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > I though you were advocating for a solution independent on the file
> > system. This is ext4 only solution, but I do not really have
> > anything against this.
> >
>
> I definitely was/am, but again, that would be an ideal case.
> Until we work out some sensible solution, possibly based on your idea you
> have mentioned in another thread, I guess we have to stick to
> what we've got. The ext4 is within our interest, thus the changes proposed.

I agree, this change seems to be simple enough to serve as
workaround for ext4 at the moment.

...snip...

> >> @@ -2967,7 +2962,6 @@ ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
> >> if (err)
> >> goto out_err;
> >> err = ext4_handle_dirty_metadata(handle, NULL, gdp_bh);
> >> -
> >
> > No reason to change that.
> >
> >> out_err:
> >> brelse(bitmap_bh);
> >> return err;
> >> @@ -4525,8 +4519,8 @@ out:
> >> reserv_clstrs);
> >> }
> >>
> >> + ext4_block_thres_notify(sbi);
> >
> > I wonder whether it would not be better to have this directly in
> > ext4_claim_free_clusters() ? Or maybe even better in
> > ext4_has_free_clusters() where we already have some of the counters
> > you need ?
> >
> > This would avoid the overhead of calculating this again since especially
> > the percpu_counter might get quite expensive.
> >
>
> The idea was to call the notify once all the necessary arithmetic
> has been done, to get the most up-to date data. And to limit the
> number of calls to notify. In both cases: ext4_claim_free_clusters
> and ext4_has_free_clusters, smth might go wrong afterwards so the counters
> might get updated thus affecting the final outcome of ext4_block_thres_notify.

Right, we might get memory allocation, error quota enospc and
possibly more. However before we do, the space is actually already
reserved and with your approach someone might get ENOSPC (or at
least cross the threshold) without the notification.

And secondly, consider for example a delayed allocation which will
never be allocated because if was freed before we manage to do
that. Similar case, but possibly with a bigger window.

None of it actually matters too much since this is a threshold
notification and by the time you get the notification the reality
will be slightly different anyway. However I think that there is a
big benefit of having this in one place and avoiding gathering all
the calculations multiple times.

> >> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> >> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> >> @@ -2558,10 +2558,56 @@ static ssize_t reserved_clusters_store(struct ext4_attr *a,
> >> if (parse_strtoull(buf, -1ULL, &val))
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >> ret = ext4_reserve_clusters(sbi, val);
> >> -
> >> + ext4_block_thres_notify(sbi);
> >
> > I do not think you count in reserved clusters at the moment. But
> > it's definitely something you should count in.
> >
>
> Well, this is the difference between the free and available blocks.
> AFAIK, the reserved blocks just mark the difference between those two,
> and they are not being counted in as far as used blocks are being concerned,
> at least from the user-space perspective, though I might be missing smth here.

See ext4_statfs(). From user-space perspective those are accounted
towards used blocks. In the same way as blocks reserved for root.

This value (s_resv_clusters) is also taken into account when
calculating space available for allocation in
ext4_has_free_clusters().

It might be a bit confusing, but please read ext4 documentation to
see what reserved_clusters is for.

>
> >> return ret ? ret : count;
> >> }
> >>
> >> +void ext4_block_thres_notify(struct ext4_sb_info *sbi)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ext4_super_block *es = sbi->s_es;
> >> + unsigned long long bcount, bfree;
> >> +
> >> + if (!atomic64_read(&sbi->block_thres_event))
> >> + /* No limit set -> no notification needed */
> >> + return;
> >> + /* Verify the limit has not been reached. If so notify the watchers */
> >> + bcount = ext4_blocks_count(es) - EXT4_C2B(sbi, sbi->s_overhead);
> >> + bfree = percpu_counter_sum_positive(&sbi->s_freeclusters_counter) -
> >> + percpu_counter_sum_positive(&sbi->s_dirtyclusters_counter);
> >> + bfree = EXT4_C2B(sbi, max_t(s64, bfree, 0));
> >
> > Hmm is it even possible to have s_dirtyclusters_counter higher than
> > s_freeclusters_counter ? If so, we might have a big problem
> > somewhere.
> >
>
> Looking at the code I would agree that this should not happen, though
> this precaution is being used by ext4_statfs, so I assume it actually
> did happen (?).

Maybe, but that was possibly a bug. So if block_thres_event will
only be writable by root I'd be tempted to put ext4_warning if we
see this case.

>
> >> +
> >> + if (bcount - bfree > atomic64_read(&sbi->block_thres_event)) {
> >> + sysfs_notify(&sbi->s_kobj, NULL, "block_thres_event");
> >> + /* Prevent flooding notifications */
> >> + atomic64_set(&sbi->block_thres_event, 0);
> >> + }
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static ssize_t block_thres_event_show(struct ext4_attr *a,
> >> + struct ext4_sb_info *sbi, char *buf)
> >> +{
> >> + return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "%llu\n",
> >> + atomic64_read(&sbi->block_thres_event));
> >> +
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static ssize_t block_thres_event_store(struct ext4_attr *a,
> >> + struct ext4_sb_info *sbi,
> >> + const char *buf, size_t count)
> >> +{
> >> + struct ext4_super_block *es = sbi->s_es;
> >> + unsigned long long bcount, val;
> >> +
> >> + bcount = ext4_blocks_count(es) - EXT4_C2B(sbi, sbi->s_overhead);
> >
> > Hmm this might get confusing since user would not expect that they
> > can not set the limit up to the number of block in the file system.
> > But even if they set it to the value where EXT4_C2B(sbi,
> > sbi->s_overhead) would come to the play, they would get the
> > notification immediately right ? So is it really needed ?
> >
>
> Is there much sens to set the threshold on the total number of blocks?
> If there is an overhead - the used blocks will never hit such threshold,
> would they? The notification gets triggered whenever the number of used blocks
> exceeds the one specified as threshold, so in order to get it fired
> we have to be actually using at least that much, so I'm not sure we can get
> the case when total == used.

That's not the point. s_overhead is number of block that's used by
static filesystem structures. When it comes to file system block and
free space calculations people might view this differently (see
bsddf vs. minixdf) so I'd like to avoid it altogether.

Maybe having the threshold to be in number of free blocks available
will be a better approach.

Also do you plat to count with number of blocks reserved for root as
well ? It might be a good idea since regular users can not allocate
from that pool. Take a look at ext4_has_free_clusters() to see how
we figure out whether we have enough block for the allocation to
proceed.

I think you should use the same approach otherwise the notificaion
might get out of sync with what the filesystem will allow users to
allocate.

Thanks!
-Lukas