Re: [PATCH V5 13/16] xfs: Conditionally upgrade existing inodes to use 64-bit extent counters

Chandan Babu R
2022-02-16T12:34:48Z

On 16 Feb 2022 at 09:29, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 05:16:33PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 06:46:16PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>> > On 15 Feb 2022 at 17:03, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>> > > On 15 Feb 2022 at 15:03, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> > >> On Tue, Feb 15, 2022 at 12:18:50PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>> > >>> On 14 Feb 2022 at 22:37, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> > >>> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 at 05:40:30PM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>> > >>> >> On 07 Feb 2022 at 22:41, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> > >>> >> > On Mon, Feb 07, 2022 at 10:25:19AM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>> > >>> >> >> On 02 Feb 2022 at 01:31, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> > >>> >> >> > On Fri, Jan 21, 2022 at 10:48:54AM +0530, Chandan Babu R wrote:
>> > >>> >> >> I went through all the call sites of xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() and I think
>> > >>> >> >> that your suggestion can be implemented.
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> Sorry, I missed/overlooked the usage of xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() in
>> > >>> >> xfs_symlink().
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> Just after invoking xfs_iext_count_may_overflow(), we execute the following
>> > >>> >> steps,
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> 1. Allocate inode chunk
>> > >>> >> 2. Initialize inode chunk.
>> > >>> >> 3. Insert record into inobt/finobt.
>> > >>> >> 4. Roll the transaction.
>> > >>> >> 5. Allocate ondisk inode.
>> > >>> >> 6. Add directory inode to transaction.
>> > >>> >> 7. Allocate blocks to store symbolic link path name.
>> > >>> >> 8. Log symlink's inode (data fork contains block mappings).
>> > >>> >> 9. Log data blocks containing symbolic link path name.
>> > >>> >> 10. Add name to directory and log directory's blocks.
>> > >>> >> 11. Log directory inode.
>> > >>> >> 12. Commit transaction.
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> xfs_trans_roll() invoked in step 4 would mean that we cannot move step 6 to
>> > >>> >> occur before step 1 since xfs_trans_roll would unlock the inode by executing
>> > >>> >> xfs_inode_item_committing().
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> xfs_create() has a similar flow.
>> > >>> >>
>> > >>> >> Hence, I think we should retain the current logic of setting
>> > >>> >> XFS_DIFLAG2_NREXT64 just after reading the inode from the disk.
>> > >>> >
>> > >>> > File creation shouldn't ever run into problems with
>> > >>> > xfs_iext_count_may_overflow because (a) only symlinks get created with
>> > >>> > mapped blocks, and never more than two; and (b) we always set NREXT64
>> > >>> > (the inode flag) on new files if NREXT64 (the superblock feature bit) is
>> > >>> > enabled, so a newly created file will never require upgrading.
>> > >>>
>> > >>> The inode representing the symbolic link being created cannot overflow its
>> > >>> data fork extent count field. However, the inode representing the directory
>> > >>> inside which the symbolic link entry is being created, might overflow its data
>> > >>> fork extent count field.
>> > >>
>> > >> I dont' think that can happen. A directory is limited in size to 3
>> > >> segments of 32GB each. In reality, only the data segment can ever
>> > >> reach 32GB as both the dabtree and free space segments are just
>> > >> compact indexes of the contents of the 32GB data segment.
>> > >>
>> > >> Hence a directory is never likely to reach more than about 40GB of
>> > >> blocks which is nowhere near large enough to overflowing a 32 bit
>> > >> extent count field.
>> > >
>> > > I think you are right.
>> > >
>> > > The maximum file size that can be represented by the data fork extent counter
>> > > in the worst case occurs when all extents are 1 block in size and each block
>> > > is 1k in size.
>> > >
>> > > With 1k byte sized blocks, a file can reach upto,
>> > > 1k * (2^31) = 2048 GB
>> > >
>> > > This is much larger than the asymptotic maximum size of a directory i.e.
>> > > 32GB * 3 = 96GB.
>>
>> The downside of getting rid of the checks for directories is that we
>> won't be able to use the error injection knob that limits all forks to
>> 10 extents max to see what happens when that part of directory expansion
>> fails. But if it makes it easier to handle nrext64, then that's
>> probably a good enough reason to forego that.
>
> If you want error injection to do that, add explicit error injection
> to the directory code.

The transaction might already be dirty before entering the directory code
(e.g. xfs_dir_createname()). In this case, an error return from
xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() will cause the filesystem to be shut down.

On the other hand, removing calls to xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() from the
previously listed directory functions would result in the error injection knob
to not work for directories. This would require us to delete xfs/533 test.

Leaving the current invocations of xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() in their
respective locations would mean that they are essentially no-ops for functions
which manipulate directories. However, with functions like xfs_symlink() and
xfs_create(), I wouldn't be able to add the inode to the transaction before
invoking xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() because this leads to inode being
unlocked when rolling the transaction.

Therefore I think we should not change the current code flow w.r.t to
functions associated with directory entry manipulation. i.e.
1. Let xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() continue to be no-op w.r.t directory
manipulation.
2. Since xfs_iext_count_may_overflow() is a no-op, there is no need to move
"add inode to transaction" code to occur before invoking
xfs_iext_count_may_overflow().

>
>> > xfs_bmap_del_extent_real()
>>
>> Not sure about this one, since it actually /can/ result in more extents.
>
> Yup, unlikely to ever trigger, but still necessary for correctness.
>

--
chandan