lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Sat, 18 Feb 2023 07:03:25 +0530
From:   Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To:     Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, rookxu <brookxu.cn@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 8/9] ext4: Use rbtrees to manage PAs instead of inode i_prealloc_list

Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com> writes:

> Currently, the kernel uses i_prealloc_list to hold all the inode
> preallocations. This is known to cause degradation in performance in
> workloads which perform large number of sparse writes on a single file.
> This is mainly because functions like ext4_mb_normalize_request() and
> ext4_mb_use_preallocated() iterate over this complete list, resulting in
> slowdowns when large number of PAs are present.
>
> Patch 27bc446e2 partially fixed this by enforcing a limit of 512 for
> the inode preallocation list and adding logic to continually trim the
> list if it grows above the threshold, however our testing revealed that
> a hardcoded value is not suitable for all kinds of workloads.
>
> To optimize this, add an rbtree to the inode and hold the inode
> preallocations in this rbtree. This will make iterating over inode PAs
> faster and scale much better than a linked list. Additionally, we also
> had to remove the LRU logic that was added during trimming of the list
> (in ext4_mb_release_context()) as it will add extra overhead in rbtree.
> The discards now happen in the lowest-logical-offset-first order.
>
> ** Locking notes **
>
> With the introduction of rbtree to maintain inode PAs, we can't use RCU
> to walk the tree for searching since it can result in partial traversals
> which might miss some nodes(or entire subtrees) while discards happen
> in parallel (which happens under a lock).  Hence this patch converts the
> ei->i_prealloc_lock spin_lock to rw_lock.
>
> Almost all the codepaths that read/modify the PA rbtrees are protected
> by the higher level inode->i_data_sem (except
> ext4_mb_discard_group_preallocations() and ext4_clear_inode()) IIUC, the
> only place we need lock protection is when one thread is reading
> "searching" the PA rbtree (earlier protected under rcu_read_lock()) and
> another is "deleting" the PAs in ext4_mb_discard_group_preallocations()
> function (which iterates all the PAs using the grp->bb_prealloc_list and
> deletes PAs from the tree without taking any inode lock (i_data_sem)).
>
> So, this patch converts all rcu_read_lock/unlock() paths for inode list
> PA to use read_lock() and all places where we were using
> ei->i_prealloc_lock spinlock will now be using write_lock().
>
> Note that this makes the fast path (searching of the right PA e.g.
> ext4_mb_use_preallocated() or ext4_mb_normalize_request()), now use
> read_lock() instead of rcu_read_lock/unlock().  Ths also will now block
> due to slow discard path (ext4_mb_discard_group_preallocations()) which
> uses write_lock().
>
> But this is not as bad as it looks. This is because -
>
> 1. The slow path only occurs when the normal allocation failed and we
>    can say that we are low on disk space.  One can argue this scenario
>    won't be much frequent.
>
> 2. ext4_mb_discard_group_preallocations(), locks and unlocks the rwlock
>    for deleting every individual PA.  This gives enough opportunity for
>    the fast path to acquire the read_lock for searching the PA inode
>    list.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
> ---
>  fs/ext4/ext4.h    |   4 +-
>  fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 284 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  fs/ext4/mballoc.h |   6 +-
>  fs/ext4/super.c   |   4 +-
>  4 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 87 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/ext4.h b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> index 140e1eb300d1..fad5f087e4c6 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/ext4.h
> @@ -1120,8 +1120,8 @@ struct ext4_inode_info {
>
>  	/* mballoc */
>  	atomic_t i_prealloc_active;
> -	struct list_head i_prealloc_list;
> -	spinlock_t i_prealloc_lock;
> +	struct rb_root i_prealloc_node;
> +	rwlock_t i_prealloc_lock;
>
>  	/* extents status tree */
>  	struct ext4_es_tree i_es_tree;
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> index 7b8bbfb9ad58..1bee8a46662b 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
> @@ -3984,6 +3984,24 @@ static void ext4_mb_normalize_group_request(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac)
>  	mb_debug(sb, "goal %u blocks for locality group\n", ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len);
>  }
>
> +/*
> + * This function returns the next element to look at during inode
> + * PA rbtree walk. We assume that we have held the inode PA rbtree lock
> + * (ei->i_prealloc_lock)
> + *
> + * new_start	The start of the range we want to compare
> + * cur_start	The existing start that we are comparing against
> + * node	The node of the rb_tree
> + */
> +static inline struct rb_node*
> +ext4_mb_pa_rb_next_iter(ext4_lblk_t new_start, ext4_lblk_t cur_start, struct rb_node *node)
> +{
> +	if (new_start < cur_start)
> +		return node->rb_left;
> +	else
> +		return node->rb_right;
> +}
> +
>  static inline void
>  ext4_mb_pa_assert_overlap(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>  			  ext4_lblk_t start, ext4_lblk_t end)
> @@ -3992,80 +4010,162 @@ ext4_mb_pa_assert_overlap(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
>  	struct ext4_inode_info *ei = EXT4_I(ac->ac_inode);
>  	struct ext4_prealloc_space *tmp_pa;
>  	ext4_lblk_t tmp_pa_start, tmp_pa_end;
> +	struct rb_node *iter;
>
> -	rcu_read_lock();
> -	list_for_each_entry_rcu(tmp_pa, &ei->i_prealloc_list, pa_node.inode_list) {
> -		spin_lock(&tmp_pa->pa_lock);
> -		if (tmp_pa->pa_deleted == 0) {
> -			tmp_pa_start = tmp_pa->pa_lstart;
> -			tmp_pa_end = tmp_pa->pa_lstart + EXT4_C2B(sbi, tmp_pa->pa_len);
> +	read_lock(&ei->i_prealloc_lock);
> +	for (iter = ei->i_prealloc_node.rb_node; iter;
> +	     iter = ext4_mb_pa_rb_next_iter(start, tmp_pa_start, iter)) {
> +		tmp_pa = rb_entry(iter, struct ext4_prealloc_space,
> +				  pa_node.inode_node);
> +		tmp_pa_start = tmp_pa->pa_lstart;
> +		tmp_pa_end = tmp_pa->pa_lstart + EXT4_C2B(sbi, tmp_pa->pa_len);
>
> +		spin_lock(&tmp_pa->pa_lock);
> +		if (tmp_pa->pa_deleted == 0)
>  			BUG_ON(!(start >= tmp_pa_end || end <= tmp_pa_start));
> -		}
>  		spin_unlock(&tmp_pa->pa_lock);
>  	}
> -	rcu_read_unlock();
> +	read_unlock(&ei->i_prealloc_lock);
>  }
> -
>  /*
>   * Given an allocation context "ac" and a range "start", "end", check
>   * and adjust boundaries if the range overlaps with any of the existing
>   * preallocatoins stored in the corresponding inode of the allocation context.
>   *
> - *Parameters:
> + * Parameters:
>   *	ac			allocation context
>   *	start			start of the new range
>   *	end			end of the new range
>   */
>  static inline void
>  ext4_mb_pa_adjust_overlap(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
> -			 ext4_lblk_t *start, ext4_lblk_t *end)
> +			  ext4_lblk_t *start, ext4_lblk_t *end)

Ok so I think we now have a PA adjustment window logic in this
function based on searching the immediate undeleted neighbours
within the rbtree.

I went through the new logic and it looks functionally correct to me.
Although the previous logic of undelete the PA was simpler to code,
but I think as we discussed, we rather not go in that rabbit hole.

For the rest of the patch since I was directly involved in the
development and had done multiple reviews, so this time I have only
verified new pa overlap adjustment function.
(Let me know in case if there were any other changes to this patch)

With that please feel free to add -

Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) <ritesh.list@...il.com>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists