public inbox for stable@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
To: stable@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>, Julian Taylor <julian.taylor@1und1.de>,
	Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>,
	Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>,
	David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Subject: [PATCH 6.6.x] btrfs: do not wait for short bulk allocation
Date: Tue, 14 May 2024 19:12:24 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240514171225.11774-1-dsterba@suse.com> (raw)

From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>

commit 1db7959aacd905e6487d0478ac01d89f86eb1e51 upstream.

[BUG]
There is a recent report that when memory pressure is high (including
cached pages), btrfs can spend most of its time on memory allocation in
btrfs_alloc_page_array() for compressed read/write.

[CAUSE]
For btrfs_alloc_page_array() we always go alloc_pages_bulk_array(), and
even if the bulk allocation failed (fell back to single page
allocation) we still retry but with extra memalloc_retry_wait().

If the bulk alloc only returned one page a time, we would spend a lot of
time on the retry wait.

The behavior was introduced in commit 395cb57e8560 ("btrfs: wait between
incomplete batch memory allocations").

[FIX]
Although the commit mentioned that other filesystems do the wait, it's
not the case at least nowadays.

All the mainlined filesystems only call memalloc_retry_wait() if they
failed to allocate any page (not only for bulk allocation).
If there is any progress, they won't call memalloc_retry_wait() at all.

For example, xfs_buf_alloc_pages() would only call memalloc_retry_wait()
if there is no allocation progress at all, and the call is not for
metadata readahead.

So I don't believe we should call memalloc_retry_wait() unconditionally
for short allocation.

Call memalloc_retry_wait() if it fails to allocate any page for tree
block allocation (which goes with __GFP_NOFAIL and may not need the
special handling anyway), and reduce the latency for
btrfs_alloc_page_array().

Reported-by: Julian Taylor <julian.taylor@1und1.de>
Tested-by: Julian Taylor <julian.taylor@1und1.de>
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/8966c095-cbe7-4d22-9784-a647d1bf27c3@1und1.de/
Fixes: 395cb57e8560 ("btrfs: wait between incomplete batch memory allocations")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org # 6.1+
Reviewed-by: Sweet Tea Dorminy <sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Reviewed-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 14 ++------------
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
index 5acb2cb79d4b..9fbffd84b16c 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
@@ -686,24 +686,14 @@ int btrfs_alloc_page_array(unsigned int nr_pages, struct page **page_array)
 		unsigned int last = allocated;
 
 		allocated = alloc_pages_bulk_array(GFP_NOFS, nr_pages, page_array);
-
-		if (allocated == nr_pages)
-			return 0;
-
-		/*
-		 * During this iteration, no page could be allocated, even
-		 * though alloc_pages_bulk_array() falls back to alloc_page()
-		 * if  it could not bulk-allocate. So we must be out of memory.
-		 */
-		if (allocated == last) {
+		if (unlikely(allocated == last)) {
+			/* No progress, fail and do cleanup. */
 			for (int i = 0; i < allocated; i++) {
 				__free_page(page_array[i]);
 				page_array[i] = NULL;
 			}
 			return -ENOMEM;
 		}
-
-		memalloc_retry_wait(GFP_NOFS);
 	}
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.45.0


             reply	other threads:[~2024-05-14 17:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-05-14 17:12 David Sterba [this message]
2024-05-15  7:22 ` [PATCH 6.6.x] btrfs: do not wait for short bulk allocation Greg KH

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20240514171225.11774-1-dsterba@suse.com \
    --to=dsterba@suse.com \
    --cc=fdmanana@suse.com \
    --cc=julian.taylor@1und1.de \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=sweettea-kernel@dorminy.me \
    --cc=wqu@suse.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox