Re: iomap infrastructure and multipage writes V5

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:26:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> Christoph, it look slike there's an ENOSPC+ENOMEM behavioural regression here.
> generic/224 on my 1p/1GB RAM VM using a 1k lock size filesystem has
> significantly different behaviour once ENOSPC is hit withi this patchset.
> 
> It ends up with an endless stream of errors like this:

I've spent some time trying to reproduce this.  I'm actually getting
the OOM killer almost reproducible for for-next without the iomap
patches as well when just using 1GB of mem.  1400 MB is the minimum
I can reproducibly finish the test with either code base.

But with the 1400 MB setup I see a few interesting things.  Even
with the baseline, no-iomap case I see a few errors in the log:

[   70.407465] Filesystem "vdc": reserve blocks depleted! Consider increasing
reserve pool
size.
[   70.195645] XFS (vdc): page discard on page ffff88005682a988, inode 0xd3, offset 761856.
[   70.408079] Buffer I/O error on dev vdc, logical block 1048513, lost async
page write
[   70.408598] Buffer I/O error on dev vdc, logical block 1048514, lost async
page write
 27s

With iomap I also see the spew of page discard errors your see, but while
I see a lot of them, the rest still finishes after a reasonable time,
just a few seconds more than the pre-iomap baseline.  I also see the
reserve block depleted message in this case.

Digging into the reserve block depleted message - it seems we have
too many parallel iomap_allocate transactions going on.  I suspect
this might be because the writeback code will not finish a writeback
context if we have multiple blocks inside a page, which can
happen easily for this 1k ENOSPC setup.  I've not had time to fully
check if this is what really happens, but I did a quick hack (see below)
to only allocate 1k at a time in iomap_begin, and with that generic/224
finishes without the warning spew.  Of course this isn't a real fix,
and I need to fully understand what's going on in writeback due to
different allocation / dirtying patterns from the iomap change.


diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
index 620fc91..d9afba2 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
@@ -1018,7 +1018,7 @@ xfs_file_iomap_begin(
 		 * Note that the values needs to be less than 32-bits wide until
 		 * the lower level functions are updated.
 		 */
-		length = min_t(loff_t, length, 1024 * PAGE_SIZE);
+		length = min_t(loff_t, length, 1024);
 		if (xfs_get_extsz_hint(ip)) {
 			/*
 			 * xfs_iomap_write_direct() expects the shared lock. It
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]
  Powered by Linux