This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled
btrfs: defrag: avoid unnecessary defrag caused by incorrect extent size
to the 6.7-stable tree which can be found at:
http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary
The filename of the patch is:
btrfs-defrag-avoid-unnecessary-defrag-caused-by-incorrect-extent-size.patch
and it can be found in the queue-6.7 subdirectory.
If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> know about it.
>From e42b9d8b9ea2672811285e6a7654887ff64d23f3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 10:00:42 +1030
Subject: btrfs: defrag: avoid unnecessary defrag caused by incorrect extent size
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
commit e42b9d8b9ea2672811285e6a7654887ff64d23f3 upstream.
[BUG]
With the following file extent layout, defrag would do unnecessary IO
and result more on-disk space usage.
# mkfs.btrfs -f $dev
# mount $dev $mnt
# xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 0 40m" $mnt/foobar
# sync
# xfs_io -f -c "pwrite 40m 16k" $mnt/foobar
# sync
Above command would lead to the following file extent layout:
item 6 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 15816 itemsize 53
generation 7 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 298844160 nr 41943040
extent data offset 0 nr 41943040 ram 41943040
extent compression 0 (none)
item 7 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 41943040) itemoff 15763 itemsize 53
generation 8 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 13631488 nr 16384
extent data offset 0 nr 16384 ram 16384
extent compression 0 (none)
Which is mostly fine. We can allow the final 16K to be merged with the
previous 40M, but it's upon the end users' preference.
But if we defrag the file using the default parameters, it would result
worse file layout:
# btrfs filesystem defrag $mnt/foobar
# sync
item 6 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 15816 itemsize 53
generation 7 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 298844160 nr 41943040
extent data offset 0 nr 8650752 ram 41943040
extent compression 0 (none)
item 7 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 8650752) itemoff 15763 itemsize 53
generation 9 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 340787200 nr 33292288
extent data offset 0 nr 33292288 ram 33292288
extent compression 0 (none)
item 8 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 41943040) itemoff 15710 itemsize 53
generation 8 type 1 (regular)
extent data disk byte 13631488 nr 16384
extent data offset 0 nr 16384 ram 16384
extent compression 0 (none)
Note the original 40M extent is still there, but a new 32M extent is
created for no benefit at all.
[CAUSE]
There is an existing check to make sure we won't defrag a large enough
extent (the threshold is by default 32M).
But the check is using the length to the end of the extent:
range_len = em->len - (cur - em->start);
/* Skip too large extent */
if (range_len >= extent_thresh)
goto next;
This means, for the first 8MiB of the extent, the range_len is always
smaller than the default threshold, and would not be defragged.
But after the first 8MiB, the remaining part would fit the requirement,
and be defragged.
Such different behavior inside the same extent caused the above problem,
and we should avoid different defrag decision inside the same extent.
[FIX]
Instead of using @range_len, just use @em->len, so that we have a
consistent decision among the same file extent.
Now with this fix, we won't touch the extent, thus not making it any
worse.
Reported-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
Fixes: 0cb5950f3f3b ("btrfs: fix deadlock when reserving space during defrag")
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 6.1+
Reviewed-by: Boris Burkov <boris@xxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@xxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/btrfs/defrag.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
--- a/fs/btrfs/defrag.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/defrag.c
@@ -1047,7 +1047,7 @@ static int defrag_collect_targets(struct
goto add;
/* Skip too large extent */
- if (range_len >= extent_thresh)
+ if (em->len >= extent_thresh)
goto next;
/*
Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from wqu@xxxxxxxx are
queue-6.7/btrfs-defrag-avoid-unnecessary-defrag-caused-by-incorrect-extent-size.patch
