Re: [PATCH 10/43] xfs: make metabtree reservations global

Darrick J. Wong
2025-02-07T04:24:55Z

On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 05:18:48AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 12:50:21PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 06, 2025 at 07:44:26AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > Currently each metabtree inode has it's own space reservation to ensure
> > > it can be expanded to the maximum size. This is not very efficient as it
> > > requires a large number of blocks to be set aside that can't be used at
> > > all by other btrees.
> > >
> > > Switch to a model that uses a global pool instead in preparation for
> > > reducing the amount of reserved space.
> >
> > ...because inodes draw from the global pool, so there's no reason to
> > compartmentalize each rt rmap btree's reservation like we do for per-AG
> > rmap btrees, right?
>
> Yes.
>
> > > - to_resv = ip->i_meta_resv_asked - (ip->i_nblocks + ip->i_delayed_blks);
> > > + to_resv = mp->m_metafile_resv_target -
> > > + (mp->m_metafile_resv_used + mp->m_metafile_resv_avail);
> >
> > This separates accounting of the usage of the metadata btree (e.g.
> > rtrmapbt) from i_blocks, which is a convenient way to fix an accounting
> > bug if ever there's a metadir inode with a big enough xattr structure
> > that it blows out into a real ondisk block. So far I don't think that
> > happens in practice, but it's not impossible.
> >
>
> Heh. I didn't think of that, but yes even if very theoretical at the
> moment.
>
> > Clearly, the mapping of before to after is:
> >
> > i_meta_resv_asked -> m_metafile_resv_target
> > i_nblocks -> m_metafile_resv_used
> > i_delayed_blks -> m_metafile_resv_avail
> >
> > Makes sense. And I guess we still consider the reservations as "delayed
> > allocations" in the sense that we subtract from fdblocks and put the
> > same quantity into m_delalloc_blks.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > @@ -932,13 +932,17 @@ xrep_reap_metadir_fsblocks(
> > > xfs_rmap_ino_bmbt_owner(&oinfo, sc->ip->i_ino, XFS_DATA_FORK);
>
> ...
>
> > > + /*
> > > + * Resize the reservations so that we don't fail to expand the btree.
> > > + */
> > > + return xfs_metafile_resv_init(sc->mp);
> >
> > I'm not sure this fixes the reservation correctly -- let's say we have a
> > busted btree inode with a 100 fsblock reservation that was using 20 fsb.
> > At mount, we'll have called xfs_dec_fdblocks for 100 - 20 = 80 fsb:
> >
> > hidden_space = target - used;
> > xfs_dec_fdblocks(mp, hidden_space, true);
> >
> > Then we rebuild it with a more compact 18 fsb btree. Now we run
> > xfs_metafile_resv_init and it thinks it needs to call xfs_dec_fdblocks
> > for 100 - 18 = 82 fsb. But we already reserved 80 for this file, so the
> > correct thing to do here is to xfs_dec_fdblocks 2fsb from fdblocks, not
> > another 82.
>
> Hmm, yes. If only we had a good test for this :)

You could populate an rt filesystem with a lot of small mappings, then
use magic debug switches to xfs_repair to rebuild the rt btrees with
half full leaf and node blocks, and then force online repair to rebuild
it. Then it'll rebuild them with 75% full blocks. Come to think of it,
IIRC online repair also has secret debug knobs for that kind of thing.

--D