[PATCH 6.6.x] btrfs: do not wait for short bulk allocation

[PATCH 6.6.x] btrfs: do not wait for short bulk allocation

[David Sterba]

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

Re: [PATCH 6.6.x] btrfs: do not wait for short bulk allocation

[Greg KH]

On Tue, May 14, 2024 at 07:12:24PM +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> 
> commit 1db7959aacd905e6487d0478ac01d89f86eb1e51 upstream.

Both now quued up, thanks,

greg k-h