On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:47:08PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 10:25:12AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 01:07:34PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > The inode chunk allocation transaction reserves inobt_maxlevels-1
> > > blocks to accommodate a full split of the inode btree. A full split
> > > requires an allocation for every existing level and a new root
> > > block, which means inobt_maxlevels is the worst case block
> > > requirement for a transaction that inserts to the inobt. This can
> > > lead to a transaction block reservation overrun when tmpfile
> > > creation allocates an inode chunk and expands the inobt to its
> > > maximum depth. This problem has been observed in conjunction with
> > > overlayfs, which makes frequent use of tmpfiles internally.
> > >
> > > The existing reservation code goes back as far as the Linux git repo
> > > history (v2.6.12). It was likely never observed as a problem because
> > > the traditional file/directory creation transactions also include
> > > worst case block reservation for directory modifications, which most
> > > likely is able to make up for a single block deficiency in the inode
> > > allocation portion of the calculation. tmpfile support is relatively
> > > more recent (v3.15), less heavily used, and only includes the inode
> > > allocation block reservation as tmpfiles aren't linked into the
> > > directory tree on creation.
> > >
> > > Fix up the inode alloc block reservation macro and a couple of the
> > > block allocator minleft parameters that enforce an allocation to
> > > leave enough free blocks in the AG for a full inobt split.
> >
> > Looks all fine to me, but... does a similar logic apply to the other
> > maxlevels uses in the kernel?
> >
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_trans_resv.c:73: blocks = num_ops * 2 * (2 * mp->m_ag_maxlevels - 1);
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_trans_resv.c:75: blocks += max(num_ops * (2 * mp->m_rmap_maxlevels - 1),
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_trans_resv.c:78: blocks += num_ops * (2 * mp->m_refc_maxlevels - 1);
> >
> > Can we end up in the same kind of situation with those other trees
> > {bno,cnt,rmap,refc} where we have a maxlevels-1 tall tree and split each
> > level all the way to the top?
> >
>
> Hmm.. it seems so at first glance, but I'm not sure I follow the
> calculations in that function. If we factor out the obvious
> num_ops/num_trees components, the comment refers to the following
> generic formula:
>
> ((2 blocks/level * max depth) - 1)
>
> I take it that since this is a log reservation calculation, the two
> block/level multiplier is there because we have to move records between
> two blocks for each level that splits. Is there a reason the -1 is
> applied after that multiplier (as opposed to subtracting 1 from the max
> depth first)? I'm wondering if that's intentional and it reflects that
> the root level is only one block...
Intentional, I think, because that's how btree splits work. :) i.e.
split every level into 2 blocks, then add one for the new root. But
when the tree is already at max height, we can't split the root
block anymore so we are accounting for a split at every level except
the root block, which is a single block....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
