On 2024/8/8 1:41, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Fri 02-08-24 19:51:16, Zhang Yi wrote:
>> From: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Now that we update data reserved space for delalloc after allocating
>> new blocks in ext4_{ind|ext}_map_blocks(), and if bigalloc feature is
>> enabled, we also need to query the extents_status tree to calculate the
>> exact reserved clusters. This is complicated now and it appears that
>> it's better to do this job in ext4_es_insert_extent(), because
>> __es_remove_extent() have already count delalloc blocks when removing
>> delalloc extents and __revise_pending() return new adding pending count,
>> we could update the reserved blocks easily in ext4_es_insert_extent().
>>
>> Thers is one special case needs to concern is the quota claiming, when
>> bigalloc is enabled, if the delayed cluster allocation has been raced
>> by another no-delayed allocation(e.g. from fallocate) which doesn't
>> cover the delayed blocks:
>>
>> |< one cluster >|
>> hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhdddddddddd
>> ^ ^
>> |< >| < fallocate this range, don't claim quota again
>>
>> We can't claim quota as usual because the fallocate has already claimed
>> it in ext4_mb_new_blocks(), we could notice this case through the
>> removed delalloc blocks count.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ...
>> @@ -926,9 +928,27 @@ void ext4_es_insert_extent(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t lblk,
>> __free_pending(pr);
>> pr = NULL;
>> }
>> + pending = err3;
>> }
>> error:
>> write_unlock(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_es_lock);
>> + /*
>> + * Reduce the reserved cluster count to reflect successful deferred
>> + * allocation of delayed allocated clusters or direct allocation of
>> + * clusters discovered to be delayed allocated. Once allocated, a
>> + * cluster is not included in the reserved count.
>> + *
>> + * When bigalloc is enabled, allocating non-delayed allocated blocks
>> + * which belong to delayed allocated clusters (from fallocate, filemap,
>> + * DIO, or clusters allocated when delalloc has been disabled by
>> + * ext4_nonda_switch()). Quota has been claimed by ext4_mb_new_blocks(),
>> + * so release the quota reservations made for any previously delayed
>> + * allocated clusters.
>> + */
>> + resv_used = rinfo.delonly_cluster + pending;
>> + if (resv_used)
>> + ext4_da_update_reserve_space(inode, resv_used,
>> + rinfo.delonly_block);
>
> I'm not sure I understand here. We are inserting extent into extent status
> tree. We are replacing resv_used clusters worth of space with delayed
> allocation reservation with normally allocated clusters so we need to
> release the reservation (mballoc already reduced freeclusters counter).
> That I understand. In normal case we should also claim quota because we are
> converting from reserved into allocated state. Now if we allocated blocks
> under this range (e.g. from fallocate()) without
> EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE, we need to release quota reservation here
> instead of claiming it. But I fail to see how rinfo.delonly_block > 0 is
> related to whether EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE was set when allocating
> blocks for this extent or not.
>
Oh, this is really complicated due to the bigalloc feature, please let me
explain it more clearly by listing all related situations.
There are 2 types of paths of allocating delayed/reserved cluster:
1. Normal case, normally allocate delayed clusters from the write back path.
2. Special case, allocate blocks under this delayed range, e.g. from
fallocate().
There are 4 situations below:
A. bigalloc is disabled. This case is simple, after path 2, we don't need
to distinguish path 1 and 2, when calling ext4_es_insert_extent(), we
set EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE after EXT4_MAP_DELAYED bit is
detected. If the flag is set, we must be replacing a delayed extent and
rinfo.delonly_block must be > 0. So rinfo.delonly_block > 0 is equal
to set EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE.
B. bigalloc is enabled, there a 3 sub-cases of allocating a delayed
cluster:
B0.Allocating a whole delayed cluster, this case is the same to A.
|< one cluster >|
ddddddd+ddddddd+ddddddd+ddddddd
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ allocating the whole range
B1.Allocating delayed blocks in a reserved cluster, this case is the same
to A, too.
|< one cluster >|
hhhhhhh+hhhhhhh+ddddddd+ddddddd
^^^^^^^
allocating this range
B2.Allocating blocks which doesn't cover the delayed blocks in one reserved
cluster,
|< one cluster >|
hhhhhhh+hhhhhhh+hhhhhhh+ddddddd
^^^^^^^
fallocating this range
This case must from path 2, which means allocating blocks without
EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE. In this case, rinfo.delonly_block must
be 0 since we are not replacing any delayed extents, so
rinfo.delonly_block == 0 means allocate blocks without EXT4_MAP_DELAYED
detected, which further means that EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE is
not set. So I think we could use rinfo.delonly_block to identify this
case.
As the cases listed above, I think we could use rinfo.delonly_block to
determine whether the EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE is set, so I use it
to determine if we need to claim quota or release quota.
> At this point it would seem much clearer if we passed flag to
> ext4_es_insert_extent() whether EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE was set
> when allocating extent or not instead of computing delonly_block and
> somehow infering from that. But maybe I miss some obvious reason why that
> is correct.
>
Yeah, I agree that infer from computing delonly_block is little obscure
and not clear enough, passing a flag is a clearer solution, but we have
to pass one more parameter to ext4_es_insert_extent() which could only be
set or not set in the allocating path in ext4_map_create_blocks(), other
5 callers don't care about it (so they should always have no
EXT4_GET_BLOCKS_DELALLOC_RESERVE flag set theoretically).
I have no strong feeling of which one is better, which one do you perfer
after reading my explanation above?
Thanks,
Yi.
