Re: Maximum height of rmapbt when reflink feature is enabled

Chandan Babu R
2020-12-01T13:13:36Z

On Tue, 01 Dec 2020 09:03:47 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 11:26:05AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 02:35:21PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
> > > I have come across a "log reservation" calculation issue when
> > > increasing XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS to 10 which is in turn required for
> >
> > Hmm. That will increase the size of the btree cursor structure even
> > farther. It's already gotten pretty bad with the realtime rmap and
> > reflink patchsets since the realtime volume can have 2^63 blocks, which
> > implies a theoretical maximum rtrmapbt height of 21 levels and a maximum
> > rtrefcountbt height of 13 levels.
>
> The cursor is dynamically allocated, yes? So what we need to do is
> drop the idea that the btree is a fixed size and base it's size on
> the actual number of levels iwe calculated for that the btree it is
> being allocated for, right?
>
> > (These heights are absurd, since they imply a data device of 2^63
> > blocks...)
> >
> > I suspect that we need to split MAXLEVELS into two values -- one for
> > per-AG btrees, and one for per-file btrees,
>
> We already do that. XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS is supposed to only be for
> per-AG btrees. It is not used for BMBTs at all, they use
> mp->m_bm_maxlevels[] which have max height calculations done at
> mount time.
>
> The problem is the cursor, because right now max mp->m_bm_maxlevels
> fits within the XFS_BTREE_MAXLEVELS limit for the per-AG trees as
> well, because everything is limited to less than 2^32 records...
>
> > and then refactor the btree
> > cursor so that the level data are a single VLA at the end. I started a
> > patchset to do all that[1], but it's incomplete.
> >
> > [1] https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/djwong/xfs-linux.git/commit/?h=btree-dynamic-depth&id=692f761838dd821cd8cc5b3d1c66d6b1ac8ec05b
>

Darrick, I will rebase my "Extend data fork extent count field" patches on top
your patch with required fixes applied. Please let me know if you have any
objection to it.

> Yeah, this, along with dynamic sizing of the rmapbt based
> on the physical AG size when refcount is enabled...
>
> And then we just don't have to care about the 1kB block size case at
> all....
>

--
chandan