On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 08:27:52AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:11:54PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:16:29PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 06:36:14PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 01:18:28PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >
> > > > > Darrick mentioned on IRC a few days ago that he'd seen an issue that
> > > > > looked similar to the problem with the rmapbt based extent swap
> > > > > algorithm when the associated inodes happen to bounce between extent and
> > > > > btree format. That problem caused repeated bmapbt block allocations and
> > > > > frees that exhausted the transaction block reservation across the
> > > > > sequence of transaction rolls. The workaround for that was to use an
> > > > > oversized block reservation, but that is not a generic or efficient
> > > > > solution.
> > > > >
> > > > > I was originally playing around with some hacks to set an optional base
> > > > > block reservation on the transaction that we would attempt to replenish
> > > > > across transaction roll sequences as the block reservation depletes, but
> > > > > eventually noticed that there isn't much difference between stuffing
> > > > > block frees in the transaction reservation counter vs. the delta counter
> > > > > when lazy sb accounting is enabled (which is required for v5 supers). As
> > > > > such, the following patch seems to address the rmapbt issue in my
> > > > > isolated tests.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think one tradeoff with this logic is that chains of rolling/freeing
> > > > > transactions would now aggregate freed space until the final transaction
> > > > > commits vs. as transactions roll. It's not immediately clear to me how
> > > > > much of an issue that is, but it sounds a bit dicey when considering
> > > > > things like truncates of large files. This behavior could still be tied
> > > > > to a transaction flag to restrict its use to situations like rmapbt
> > > > > swapext, however. Anyways, this is mostly untested outside of the extent
> > > > > swap use case so I wanted to throw this on the list as an RFC for now
> > > > > and see if anybody has thoughts or other ideas.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, well, this /would/ fix the immediate problem of running out of
> > > > block reservation, but I wonder if there are other weird subtleties.
> > > > If we're nearly out of space and we're mounted with -odiscard and the
> > > > disk is really slow at processing discard, can we encounter weird
> > > > failure cases where we end up stuck waiting for the extent busy tree to
> > > > say that one of our pingponged blocks is ok to use again?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yeah, I think something like that could happen. I don't think it should
> > > be a failure scenario though as the busy extent list should involve a
> > > log force and retry in the worst case. Either way, we could always
> > > mitigate risk by making this an optional accounting mode for particular
> > > (extent swap) transactions...
> >
> > Hmmm... OTOH I wonder how many people really run fsr? Even I don't...
> > :)
> >
> > > > In the meantime, I noticed that xfs/227 on a pmem fs (or possibly
> > > > anything with synchronous writes?) and reflink+rmap enabled seemed to
> > > > fail pretty consistently. In a hastily done and incomprehensi{ve,ble}
> > > > survey I noted that I couldn't make the disastrous pingpong happen if
> > > > there were more than ~4 blocks in the bmapbt, so maybe this would help
> > > > there.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you mean with this patch or with current upstream? I don't see
> > > xfs/227 failures on my current setups (this patch passed a weekend auto
> > > test run), but I'll have to retry with something synchronous...
> >
> > It happens semi-frequently with current upstream, and all the time with
> > the atomic file swap series.
> >
>
> I repeated on a box using ramdisk devices and still don't reproduce
> after 30+ iters, FWIW. Perhaps it depends on pmem for some reason.
Ah. Yes, it does depend on the synchronous file io nature of pmem. I
/think/ you could simulate the same thing (which is to say the lack of
delalloc writes) by mounting with -osync.
> > > BTW, is xfs/227 related to the problem you had mentioned on IRC? I
> > > wasn't quite sure what operation was involved with whatever error report
> > > you had. xfs/227 looks like an xfs_fsr test, so I'd have thought the
> > > upstream workaround would have addressed that.. (though I see some attr
> > > ops in there as well so perhaps this is related to the attr fork..?).
> >
> > It's related, but only in the sense that the "zomg hundreds of thousands
> > of intents sitting around in memory" were a side effect of creating a
> > test that creates two files with ~50000 extents and fsr'ing them.
> >
>
> Ok, well I'm a little confused then... do we have a user report of a
> block reservation exhaustion problem or is the primary issue the
> occasional failure of xfs/227?
The primary issue is the occasional failure of x/227 on the maintainer's
testing system. :P
The secondary issue is sporadic undiagnosed internal complaints which
are nearly impossible to do much triage on, due to an amazingly s****y
iscsi network that drops so much traffic you can't collect any
telemetry.
The tertiary(?) issue is that "fortunately" the atomic file update
series + fsx have proven good at testing the weaknesses of the block
reservation calculations for swap extents.
--D
> Brian
>
> > --D
> >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > > In unrelated news, I also tried fixing the log recovery defer ops chain
> > > > transactions to absorb the unused block reservations that the
> > > > xfs_*i_item_recover functions created, but that just made fdblocks be
> > > > wrong. But it didn't otherwise blow up! :P
> > > >
> > > > --D
> > > >
> > > > > Brian
> > > > >
> > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c | 11 -----------
> > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 4 ++++
> > > > > 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c
> > > > > index f37f5cc4b19f..74b3bad6c414 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c
> > > > > @@ -1628,17 +1628,6 @@ xfs_swap_extents(
> > > > > */
> > > > > resblks = XFS_SWAP_RMAP_SPACE_RES(mp, ipnext, w);
> > > > > resblks += XFS_SWAP_RMAP_SPACE_RES(mp, tipnext, w);
> > > > > -
> > > > > - /*
> > > > > - * Handle the corner case where either inode might straddle the
> > > > > - * btree format boundary. If so, the inode could bounce between
> > > > > - * btree <-> extent format on unmap -> remap cycles, freeing and
> > > > > - * allocating a bmapbt block each time.
> > > > > - */
> > > > > - if (ipnext == (XFS_IFORK_MAXEXT(ip, w) + 1))
> > > > > - resblks += XFS_IFORK_MAXEXT(ip, w);
> > > > > - if (tipnext == (XFS_IFORK_MAXEXT(tip, w) + 1))
> > > > > - resblks += XFS_IFORK_MAXEXT(tip, w);
> > > > > }
> > > > > error = xfs_trans_alloc(mp, &M_RES(mp)->tr_write, resblks, 0, 0, &tp);
> > > > > if (error)
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > > index 28b983ff8b11..b421d27445c1 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > > @@ -370,6 +370,10 @@ xfs_trans_mod_sb(
> > > > > tp->t_blk_res_used += (uint)-delta;
> > > > > if (tp->t_blk_res_used > tp->t_blk_res)
> > > > > xfs_force_shutdown(mp, SHUTDOWN_CORRUPT_INCORE);
> > > > > + } else if (delta > 0 &&
> > > > > + xfs_sb_version_haslazysbcount(&mp->m_sb)) {
> > > > > + tp->t_blk_res += delta;
> > > > > + delta = 0;
> > > > > }
> > > > > tp->t_fdblocks_delta += delta;
> > > > > if (xfs_sb_version_haslazysbcount(&mp->m_sb))
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.21.1
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
