On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 11:01:09AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 09:40:51PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 08, 2021 at 10:57:53AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 07, 2021 at 03:25:04PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > +/* Queue a new inode gc pass if there are inodes needing inactivation. */
> > > > +static void
> > > > +xfs_inodegc_queue(
> > > > + struct xfs_mount *mp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!xfs_inodegc_running(mp))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > + if (radix_tree_tagged(&mp->m_perag_tree, XFS_ICI_INODEGC_TAG))
> > > > + queue_delayed_work(mp->m_gc_workqueue, &mp->m_inodegc_work, 0);
> > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > I have no idea why we are checking if the gc is running here. All
> > > our other background stuff runs and re-queues until it is directly
> > > stopped or there's nothing left in the tree. Hence I'm a bit
> > > clueless right now about what this semantic is for...
> >
> > The opflag is supposed to control whether inactivation actually runs.
> > As you might guess from _running calls being scattered everywhere, it's
> > pretty ugly code. All this crap exists because there's no easy solution
> > to shutting down background threads after we commit to freezing the fs
> > but before an fs freeze hits SB_FREEZE_FS and we can't allocate new
> > transactions.
> >
> > Fixing inactivation to use NO_WRITECOUNT means auditing every function
> > call that xfs_inactive makes to look for an xfs_trans_alloc* call and
> > probably modifying all of them to be able to switch between regular and
> > NOWRITECOUNT mode. I tried that, it's ugly.
> >
> > Another solution is to add ->freeze_super and ->thaw_super functions
> > to prevent a FITHAW caller from racing with a FIFREEZE caller and
> > accidentally rearming the inodegc while a freeze starts.
>
> This seems like the right way to proceed.
>
> Of course, all the freeze/thaw exclusion is in freeze_super and
> thaw_super via the umount lock, so to do this we need to factor
> freeze_super() so that we can take the active references to the
> superblock ourselves, then turn off inodegc, then run the generic
> freeze_super() code...
>
> The unfreeze side where we'd turn the inode gc back on is already
> inside the protected region (via ->unfreeze_fs callout in
> thaw_super_locked()) so we don't need to do anything special there.
<nod> Not sure I want to go factoring vfs functions if I can avoid it,
though I guess there's always the copy-pasta approach :P
But for now, I /think/ I figured out a way to make it work and avoid all
that (see below).
> [I'll reorder bits to address all the other freeze stuff now so it's
> not all mixed up with the stat/df stuff]
>
> > > > +/* Stop all queued inactivation work. */
> > > > +void
> > > > +xfs_inodegc_stop(
> > > > + struct xfs_mount *mp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + clear_bit(XFS_OPFLAG_INODEGC_RUNNING_BIT, &mp->m_opflags);
> > > > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&mp->m_inodegc_work);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > what's to stop racing invocations of stop/start? Perhaps:
> > >
> > > if (test_and_clear_bit())
> > > cancel_delayed_work_sync(&mp->m_inodegc_work);
> >
> > That horrible hack below.
> >
> > > > +
> > > > +/* Schedule deferred inode inactivation work. */
> > > > +void
> > > > +xfs_inodegc_start(
> > > > + struct xfs_mount *mp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + set_bit(XFS_OPFLAG_INODEGC_RUNNING_BIT, &mp->m_opflags);
> > > > + xfs_inodegc_queue(mp);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > if (test_and_set_bit())
> > > xfs_inodegc_queue(mp);
> > >
> > > So that the running state will remain in sync with the actual queue
> > > operation? Though I'm still not sure why we need the running bit...
> >
> > (see ugly sync_fs SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULTS hack)
>
> I'm not sure how that addresses any sort of concurrent set/clear
> that could occur as it doesn't guarantee that the running state
> matches the opflag bit state...
>
> > > Ok, "opflags" are undocumented as to how they work, what their
> > > consistency model is, etc. I understand you want an atomic flag to
> > > indicate that something is running, and mp->m_flags is not that
> > > (despite being used that way historically).
> > >
> > > I dislike the "_BIT" annotations for a variable that is only to be
> > > used as an index bit field. Or maybe it's a flag field and you
> > > haven't defined any bitwise flags for it because you're not using it
> > > that way yet.
> > >
> > > So, is m_opflags an indexed bit field or a normal flag field like
> > > m_flags?
> >
> > It's an indexed bit field, which is why I named it _BIT. I'll try to
> > add more documentation around what this thing is and how the flags work:
> >
> > struct xfs_mount {
> > ...
> > /*
> > * This atomic bitset controls flags that alter the behavior of
> > * the filesystem. Use only the atomic bit helper functions
> > * here; see XFS_OPFLAG_* for information about the actual
> > * flags.
> > */
> > unsigned long m_opflags;
> > ...
> > };
> >
> > /*
> > * Operation flags -- each entry here is a bit index into m_opflags and
> > * is not itself a flag value.
> > */
> >
> > /* Are we allowed to run the inode inactivation worker? */
> > #define XFS_OPFLAG_INODEGC_RUNNING_BIT (0)
>
> This doesn't really address my comments - there's still the _BIT
> annotation mixed with "flags" variables. Other examples of this are
> that "operational flags" or state variables are updated via
> set/clear/test/etc bit op wrappers. An example of this is page and
> bufferhead state bits and variables...
Urk, it was late last night and I forgot to update the reply after I
changed that to an enum.
> I mentioned on #xfs an older patchset I had that cleaned up a lot of
> this cruft in the xfs_mount flags fields by separating feature flags
> from state flags. That can be found here:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20180820044851.414-1-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/
>
> I think if we are going to introduce dynamic mount state flags, we
> need to move towards that sort of separation. So leave this patch
> set as it is now with the opflags, and I'll update my flag vs state
> rework patchset and merge this new code into it...
>
> That all said, I still don't really see a need for a state bit here
> if we can stop the inode gc before we start the freeze process as
> via a xfs_fs_freeze_super() method.
>
> (and that's freeze done...)
>
> > > > @@ -947,6 +963,7 @@ xfs_mountfs(
> > > > * qm_unmount_quotas and therefore rely on qm_unmount to release the
> > > > * quota inodes.
> > > > */
> > > > + xfs_inodegc_flush(mp);
> > > > xfs_unmount_flush_inodes(mp);
> > >
> > > Why isn't xfs_inodegc_flush() part of xfs_unmount_flush_inodes()?
> > > Because, really, xfs_unmount_flush_inodes() depends on all the
> > > inodes first being inactivated so that all transactions on inodes
> > > are complete....
> >
> > The teardown sequence is not the same between a regular unmount and an
> > aborted mount...
> >
> > > > out_log_dealloc:
> > > > xfs_log_mount_cancel(mp);
> > > > @@ -983,6 +1000,12 @@ xfs_unmountfs(
> > > > uint64_t resblks;
> > > > int error;
> > > >
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Flush all the queued inode inactivation work to disk before tearing
> > > > + * down rt metadata and quotas.
> > > > + */
> > > > + xfs_inodegc_flush(mp);
> > > > +
> > > > xfs_blockgc_stop(mp);
> > > > xfs_fs_unreserve_ag_blocks(mp);
> > > > xfs_qm_unmount_quotas(mp);
> > >
> > > FWIW, there's inconsistency in the order of operations between
> > > failure handling in xfs_mountfs() w.r.t. inode flushing and quotas
> > > vs what xfs_unmountfs() is now doing....
> >
> > ...because during regular unmountfs, we want to inactivate inodes while
> > we still have a per-ag reservation protecting finobt expansions. During
> > an aborted mount, we don't necessarily have the reservation set up but
> > we have to clean everything out, so the inodegc flush comes much later.
> >
> > It's convoluted, but do you want me to clean /that/ up too? That's a
> > pretty heavy lift; I already tried to fix those two paths, ran out of
> > brain cells, and gave up.
>
> No, I was just noting that they are different and there was no clear
> explaination of why. A comment explaining the difference is really
> all I am looking for here...
Ok. I'll document why xfs_unmountfs calls inodegc_flush explicitly:
/*
* Perform all on-disk metadata updates required to inactivate
* inodes. Freeing inodes can cause shape changes to the
* finobt, so take care of this before we lose the per-AG space
* reservations.
*/
xfs_inodegc_flush(mp);
It shouldn't be necessary to call it again from xfs_unmount_flush_inodes
since the only inodes that should be in memory at that point are the
quota, realtime, and root directory inodes, none of which ever go
through inactivation (quota/rt are metadata, and the root dir should
never get deleted).
However, it's a bit murkier for the failed mountfs case -- I /think/ I
put the flush in there to make sure that we always sent all inodes to
reclaim no matter what weird things happened during mount. In theory
it's always a NOP since log recovery inactivates all the inodes it
touches (if necessary) and the only other inodes that mount touches are
the quota/rt/rootdir inodes.
> (and now df vs unlink....)
>
> > > > @@ -80,4 +80,37 @@ int xfs_icache_inode_is_allocated(struct xfs_mount *mp, struct xfs_trans *tp,
> > > > void xfs_blockgc_stop(struct xfs_mount *mp);
> > > > void xfs_blockgc_start(struct xfs_mount *mp);
> > > >
> > > > +void xfs_inodegc_worker(struct work_struct *work);
> > > > +void xfs_inodegc_flush(struct xfs_mount *mp);
> > > > +void xfs_inodegc_stop(struct xfs_mount *mp);
> > > > +void xfs_inodegc_start(struct xfs_mount *mp);
> > > > +int xfs_inodegc_free_space(struct xfs_mount *mp, struct xfs_icwalk *icw);
> > > > +
> > > > +/*
> > > > + * Process all pending inode inactivations immediately (sort of) so that a
> > > > + * resource usage report will be mostly accurate with regards to files that
> > > > + * have been unlinked recently.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * It isn't practical to maintain a count of the resources used by unlinked
> > > > + * inodes to adjust the values reported by this function. Resources that are
> > > > + * shared (e.g. reflink) when an inode is queued for inactivation cannot be
> > > > + * counted towards the adjustment, and cross referencing data extents with the
> > > > + * refcount btree is the only way to decide if a resource is shared. Worse,
> > > > + * unsharing of any data blocks in the system requires either a second
> > > > + * consultation with the refcount btree, or training users to deal with the
> > > > + * free space counts possibly fluctuating upwards as inactivations occur.
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Hence we guard the inactivation flush with a ratelimiter so that the counts
> > > > + * are not way out of whack while ignoring workloads that hammer us with statfs
> > > > + * calls. Once per clock tick seems frequent enough to avoid complaints about
> > > > + * inaccurate counts.
> > > > + */
> > > > +static inline void
> > > > +xfs_inodegc_summary_flush(
> > > > + struct xfs_mount *mp)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (__ratelimit(&mp->m_inodegc_ratelimit))
> > > > + xfs_inodegc_flush(mp);
> > > > +}
> > >
> > > ONce per clock tick is still quite fast - once a millisecond on a
> > > 1000Hz kernel. I'd prefer that we use a known timer base for this
> > > sort of thing, not something that changes with kernel config. Every
> > > 100ms, perhaps?
> >
> > I tried a number of ratelimit values here: 1ms, 4ms, 10ms, 100ms, 500ms,
> > 2s, and 15s. fstests and most everything else seemed to act the same up
> > to 10ms. At 100ms, the tests that delete something and immediately run
> > df will start to fail, and above that all hell breaks loose because many
> > tests (from which I extrapolate most programmers) expect that statfs
> > won't run until unlink has deleted everything.
>
> So the main problem I have with this is that it it blocks the caller
> until inactivation is done. For something that is supposed to be
> fast and non-blocking, this is a bad thing to do.
>
> The quota usage (called on every get/get_next syscall) is really the
> only one that should be called with any frequency - if anyone is
> calling statfs so fast that we have to rate limit gc flushes, then
> they aren't getting any useful information in the delta between
> calls a millisecond apart.
>
> Hence I suspect that flushes and/or rate limited flushes are not
> necessary at all here. Why not just deal with it like we do the
> inode flush at ENOSPC (i.e. xfs_flush_inodes())? i.e. we try to
> flush the work first, and if that returns true we waited on a flush
> already in progress and we don't need to do our own? Indeed, why
> aren't all the inodegc flushes done this way?
>
> For the quota case, I think doing a flush on the first get call
> would be sufficient - doing one for every "next" call doesn't make
> much sense, because we've already done a flush at the start of the
> dquot get walk. IOWs, we've done the work necessary for a point in
> time snapshot of the quota state that is largely consistent across
> all the quotas at the time the walk started. Hence I don't think we
> need to keep flushing over and over again....
<nod> The quota case might get put back, then.
> For fs_counts, it is non-blocking, best effort only. The percpu
> counters are read, not summed, so they are inaccurate to begin with.
> Hence there's not need to flush inactivated inodes there becuse the
> counters are not guaranteed accurate. If we do need a flush, then
> just do it unconditionally because anyone calling this with
> extremely high frequency really isn't going to get anything useful
> from it.
>
> For statfs, we actually sum the percpu counters, so we should just
> flush the inodegc before this. If someone is calling statfs with
> high enough frequency that rate limiting inodegc flushes is actually
> needed, then they've already got substantial problems on large CPU
> count machines..
>
> Hence I think we should just have flushes where they are needed, and
> change the flush to block and return if a flush is already in
> progress rather than doing an entire new flush itself. That
> effectively rate limits the flushing, but doesn't prevent a flush
> when none has been done in a while due to ratelimit state...
For now, I'm taking your suggestion to kick off the inactivation work at
the end of xfs_fs_syncfs, since regular syncfs is known to involve disk
access already, and the people who "unlink(); syncfs(); statfs();" like
they're supposed to will still get the results they expect.
I also made it so that if fdblocks is below the low space thresholds
then we'll delay the inode/blockgc workers less and less, and removed
xfs_inodegc_summary_flush completely.
I /think/ that flushing inodegc during a syncfs also solves the problem
of coordinating inodegc flush and stop with the rest of freeze. I might
still need the opflag to prevent requeuing if a destroy_inode races with
a readonly remount, but I need to recheck that a little more carefully
tomorrow when I'm not tired.
But, at worst, if that doesn't work, I can open-code freeze_super to
call the parts of XFS that we really want.
>
> > > I suspect that's really going to hurt stat performance. I guess
> > > benchmarks are in order...
> >
> > Ok, so here's the question I have: Does POSIX (or any other standard we
> > care to fit) actually define any behavior between the following
> > sequence:
> >
> > unlink("/foo"); /* no sync calls of any kind */
> > statfs("/");
>
> None that I know of. the man page for statfs even says:
>
> "buf is a pointer to a statfs structure defined approximately as
> follows"
>
> so even the man page is extremely cagey about what is actually
> returned in the statfs buffer. Free space counters not being totally
> accurate at any specific point in time fits with the "approximately
> defined" behaviour description in the man page. As long as we do, in
> the near term, correct account for deferred operations, then we're
> all good.
>
> > As I've mentioned in the past, the only reason we need these inodegc
> > flushes for summary reporting is because users expect that if they
> > delete an unshared 10GB file, they can immediately df and see that the
> > inode count went down by one and free space went up by 10GB.
> >
> > I /guess/ we could modify every single fstest to sync before checking
> > summary counts instead of doing this, but I bet there will be some users
> > who will be surprised that xfs now has *trfs df logic.
>
> If fstests needs accurate counters, it should use 'df --sync' and we
> should make sure that the syncfs implementation triggers a flush of
> inactive inodes before it returns. We don't have to guarantee that
> the inactivation is on stable storage, but it would make sense that
> we trigger background ops to get the free space accounting near to
> accurate...
<nod> Well let's see how it does overnight...
--D
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
