On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 07:42:19AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 12:04:42PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 04:38:26PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 10:28:09AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:04:34AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > On Sat, Aug 12, 2017 at 10:16:37AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 10:27:43AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 11, 2017 at 12:22:04PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > ... > > > 4.) Implement the ordered buffer relogging logic discussed below: detect > > > ordered buffers with previously logged segments and relog them at > > > ->iop_format() time. I suppose I could alleviate my aforementioned > > > concerns with an assert that verifies an ordered buffer isn't already > > > dirtied by the _current_ transaction (i.e., to catch the case of the > > > "screwed up optimization" I was concerned about). > > > > Yeah, that would work, except ..... > > > > > That aside, I think there is another problem here that we missed > > > previously: transactions that use ordered buffers don't reserve log > > > space for them, but relogged items require log reservation. If I follow > > > the code correctly, a relogged item that is presently in the CIL may not > > > use reservation in a subsequent tx. If the item resides in the AIL at > > > relog commit time, however, the relogging transaction must have > > > reservation for the item (the physical log space for the item is freed > > > and the space used for the relog is accounted out of the reservation). > > > > ... this. > > > > Yes, you are right, Brian, that if the item is in the CIL then we > > don't need a new reservation because the space is already accounted > > for in the current checkpoint. This, however, is still racy as the > > item in the CIL can be committed while we have it locked and so > > when we commit it's the same as "in the AIL and we need a > > reservation". > > > > Indeed. > > > > So I think the only way we can support the ability to relog previously > > > dirty buffers that have been marked ordered is to require log > > > reservation for them as for normal physically logged buffers, which kind > > > of defeats the purpose. > > > > > > 5.) A deferred op variant of the bmbt owner change algorithm. I haven't > > > fully thought this one through yet so it may not be viable, but the > > > general idea is to use deferred ops to conditionally physically log > > > previously dirty buffers where required. For example, use a transaction > > > with log reservation for one full buffer, log a new bmbt owner change > > > intent and start running through the bmbt scan attempting to order > > > buffers. Update xfs_trans_ordered_buf() to explicitly fail on buffers > > > with dirty segments. When said failure occurs during the bmbt scan, > > > physically log the buffer and terminate the scan with -EAGAIN. The > > > deferred infra rolls the tx, relogs the intent and has to restart the > > > bmbt scan over again. This repeats until we've processed the entire > > > tree. > > > > Problem is that a deferred op variant isn't backwards compatible, > > and given this is a v4 filesystem issue, that's a big problem > > because we can't just use a log incompat flag while the op is active > > in the log. > > > > Yeah, I was thinking we'd be able to continue to support the old > recovery mechanism for forward compatibility, but apparently glossed > over the backwards compatibility requirement. > > > However, I think we can do this with just normal rolling > > transactions. Like you suggest, we can create the transaction with a > > small amount of buffer space that can be logged (e.g. enough for N > > complete buffers). Then we modify xfs_trans_buf_ordered() to "try > > ordering the buffer". If the buffer needs relogging, then it fails > > and we log the owner field in the buffer as per a normal buffer. (or > > maybe just take the range we need to log and log that instead of > > ordering the buffer - as long as we can count the buffers that do > > this.) > > > > This is basically how I was thinking it through at first, I just went > the next logical step and defined it as a deferred operation. Walking > back from that, I still think something like this could work. > > One subtle difference I think we may need to accommodate is that once > this algorithm can start committing/rolling transactions, we'd have to > make sure the inode owner change log item makes it to the log first. I > think that means we'd have to commit/roll the initial swap transaction > first and then start the bmbt change sequence while we still have the > inode(s) locked (which then implies we should be relogging the inode as > well). We also have to make sure it's Ok to roll transactions with > ordered buffers, which as of today means those buffers are free to write > back. I _think_ this is safe here so long as the owner change item is > logged and effectively pinned. Anyways, the details will probably be > easier to reason about after playing with it a bit. > > Hmm, this does make me wonder whether we already have a similar > atomicity issue with the rmapbt algorithm. The map/unmap sequence is > going to roll transactions as it progresses, which I think should be > fine in and of itself. We don't actually change the reflink flags if > necessary until afterwards, however, so I'm wondering whether we could > end up inconsistent if we crash after having swapped enough reflinked > extents to require a flag state change but not having updated the flag. > If so, it still may not be a problem in practice given the semantics of > the reflink flag and how xfs_fsr works. I think you're right about the atomicity problem. Given that we now also have the ability to look for shared extents and clear the reflink flag if there aren't any, it makes more sense to set the reflink flag on both inodes before commencing the swap operation and then run the test-and-clear on both inodes afterwards. --D > > On the N-th relogged buffer, roll the transaction to trigger > > regranting of the log space for another N buffers and keep going > > with the owner change. The transaction roll will then commit the > > buffer owner change to the log. > > > > In recovery, we just replay the owner change as we currently do, > > knowing that if the buffer was logged during the owner change and > > written to a later checkpoint, the replay of that buffer will > > contain the owner change we just did and so we won't lose anything. > > > > I think this should work on all v4 filesystems without any need to > > modify log recovery or new log items.... > > > > All of the above aside, any thoughts on just using the "rmap" algorithm > universally? I hadn't hit any issues with that so far, but worst case it > sounds like we could break whatever tenuous rmapbt feature dependencies > might exist. > > Brian > > > Cheers, > > > > Dave. > > -- > > Dave Chinner > > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > -- > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
