From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 00D197CA0 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 18:18:23 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DE40AC005 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:18:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.145]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id IFsgH34EYwOADzNf for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2016 16:16:03 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2016 09:16:01 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: iomap infrastructure and multipage writes V5 Message-ID: <20160630231601.GU12670@dastard> References: <1464792297-13185-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20160628002649.GI12670@dastard> <20160630172239.GA23082@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160630172239.GA23082@lst.de> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: rpeterso@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 07:22:39PM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:26:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > Christoph, it look slike there's an ENOSPC+ENOMEM behavioural regression here. > > generic/224 on my 1p/1GB RAM VM using a 1k lock size filesystem has > > significantly different behaviour once ENOSPC is hit withi this patchset. > > > > It ends up with an endless stream of errors like this: > > I've spent some time trying to reproduce this. I'm actually getting > the OOM killer almost reproducible for for-next without the iomap > patches as well when just using 1GB of mem. 1400 MB is the minimum > I can reproducibly finish the test with either code base. > > But with the 1400 MB setup I see a few interesting things. Even > with the baseline, no-iomap case I see a few errors in the log: > > [ 70.407465] Filesystem "vdc": reserve blocks depleted! Consider increasing > reserve pool > size. > [ 70.195645] XFS (vdc): page discard on page ffff88005682a988, inode 0xd3, offset 761856. > [ 70.408079] Buffer I/O error on dev vdc, logical block 1048513, lost async > page write > [ 70.408598] Buffer I/O error on dev vdc, logical block 1048514, lost async > page write > 27s > > With iomap I also see the spew of page discard errors your see, but while > I see a lot of them, the rest still finishes after a reasonable time, > just a few seconds more than the pre-iomap baseline. I also see the > reserve block depleted message in this case. The reserve block pool depleted message is normal for me in this test. We're throwing a thousand concurrent processes at the filesystem at ENOSPC, and so the metadata reservation for the delayed allocation totals quite a lot. We only reserve 8192 blocks for the reserve pool, so a delalloc reservation for one page on each file (4 blocks per page, which means a couple of blocks for the metadata reservation via the indlen calculation) is going to consume the reserve pool quite quickly if the up front reservation overshoots the XFS_ALLOC_SET_ASIDE() ENOSPC threshold. > Digging into the reserve block depleted message - it seems we have > too many parallel iomap_allocate transactions going on. I suspect > this might be because the writeback code will not finish a writeback > context if we have multiple blocks inside a page, which can > happen easily for this 1k ENOSPC setup. Right - this test has regularly triggered that warning on this particular test setup for me - it's not something new to the iomap patchset. > I've not had time to fully > check if this is what really happens, but I did a quick hack (see below) > to only allocate 1k at a time in iomap_begin, and with that generic/224 > finishes without the warning spew. Of course this isn't a real fix, > and I need to fully understand what's going on in writeback due to > different allocation / dirtying patterns from the iomap change. Which tends to indicate that the multi-block allocation has a larger indlen reservation, and that's what is causing the code to hit whatever edge-case that is leading to it not recovering. However, I'm still wondering how we are not throwing ENOSPC back to userspace at XFS_ALLOC_SET_ASIDE limits. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs