Message-ID: <63ADC13FD55D6546B7DECE290D39E373F290EF51@H3CMLB12-EX.srv.huawei-3com.com>
Date:   Thu, 11 Jan 2018 03:41:22 +0000
From:   Changwei Ge <ge.changwei@....com>
To:     Gang He <ghe@...e.com>, "jlbec@...lplan.org" <jlbec@...lplan.org>,
        "mfasheh@...sity.com" <mfasheh@...sity.com>
CC:     "ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com" <ocfs2-devel@....oracle.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid
 duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote:
> Hi Changwei,
> 
> 
>>>>
>> On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote:
>>> Hi Changwei,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote:
>>>>> Hi Changwei,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote:
>>>>>>> Hi Changwei,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Gang,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote:
>>>>>>>>> As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via
>>>>>>>>> fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk
>>>>>>>>> cluster file system, if the user configures a scheduled fstrim
>>>>>>>>> job on each file system node, this will trigger multiple nodes
>>>>>>>>> trim a shared disk simultaneously, it is very wasteful for CPU
>>>>>>>>> and IO consumption, also might negatively affect the lifetime
>>>>>>>>> of poor-quality SSD devices.
>>>>>>>>> Then, we introduce a trimfs dlm lock to communicate with each
>>>>>>>>> other in this case, which will make only one fstrim command to
>>>>>>>>> do the trimming on a shared disk among the cluster, the fstrim
>>>>>>>>> commands from the other nodes should wait for the first fstrim
>>>>>>>>> to finish and returned success directly, to avoid running a the
>>>>>>>>> same trim on the shared disk again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Compare with first version, I change the fstrim commands' returned
>>>>>>>>> value and behavior in case which meets a fstrim command is running
>>>>>>>>> on a shared disk.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gang He <ghe@...e.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>       fs/ocfs2/alloc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>>>>>       1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
>>>>>>>>> index ab5105f..5c9c3e2 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -7382,6 +7382,7 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct
>>>>>>>> fstrim_range *range)
>>>>>>>>>       	struct buffer_head *gd_bh = NULL;
>>>>>>>>>       	struct ocfs2_dinode *main_bm;
>>>>>>>>>       	struct ocfs2_group_desc *gd = NULL;
>>>>>>>>> +	struct ocfs2_trim_fs_info info, *pinfo = NULL;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think *pinfo* is not necessary.
>>>>>>> This pointer is necessary, since it can be NULL or non-NULL depend on the
>>>>>> code logic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This point is OK for me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>>       	start = range->start >> osb->s_clustersize_bits;
>>>>>>>>>       	len = range->len >> osb->s_clustersize_bits;
>>>>>>>>> @@ -7419,6 +7420,42 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct
>>>>>>>> fstrim_range *range)
>>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>>       	trace_ocfs2_trim_fs(start, len, minlen);
>>>>>>>>>       
>>>>>>>>> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_init(osb);
>>>>>>>>> +	ret = ocfs2_trim_fs_lock(osb, NULL, 1);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't get why try to lock here and if fails, acquire the same lock again
>>>>>>>> later but wait until granted.
>>>>>>> Please think about the user case, the patch is only used to handle this
>>>>>> case.
>>>>>>> When the administer configures a fstrim schedule task on each node, then
>>>>>> each node will trigger a fstrim on shared disks concurrently.
>>>>>>> In this case, we should avoid duplicated fstrim on a shared disk since this
>>>>>> will waste CPU/IO resources and affect SSD lifetime sometimes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not worrying about that trimfs will affect SSD's lifetime quite a lot,
>>>>>> since physical-logical address converting table resides in RAM while SSD is
>>>>>> working.
>>>>>> And that table won't be at a big scale. My point here is not affecting this
>>>>>> patch. Just a tip here.
>>>>> This depend on SSD firmware implementation, but for secure-trim, it really
>>>> possibly affect SSD lifetime.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Firstly, we use try_lock to get fstrim dlm lock to identify if there is any
>>>>>> other node which is doing fstrim on the disk.
>>>>>>> If not, this node is the first one, this node should do fstrim operation on
>>>>>> the disk.
>>>>>>> If yes, this node is not the first one, this node should wait until the
>>>>>> first node is done for fstrim operation, then return the result from DLM
>>>>>> lock's value.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can it just acquire the _trimfs_ lock as a blocking one directly here?
>>>>>>> We can not do a blocking lock directly, since we need to identify if there
>>>>>> is any other node has being do fstrim operation when this node start to do
>>>>>> fstrim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your elaboration.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well how about the third node trying to trimming fs too?
>>>>>> It needs LVB from the second node.
>>>>>> But it seems that the second node can't provide a valid LVB.
>>>>>> So the third node will perform trimfs once more.
>>>>> No, the second node does not change DLM lock's value, but the DLM lock's
>>>> value is still valid.
>>>>> The third node also refer to this DLM lock's value, then do the same logic
>>>> like the second node.
>>>>
>>>> Hi Gang,
>>>> I don't see any places where ocfs2_lock_res::ocfs2_lock_res_ops::set_lvb is
>>>> set while flag LOCK_TYPE_USES_LVB is added.
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure below code path can work well?
>>> Yes, have done a full testing on two and three nodes.
>>>
>>>> ocfs2_process_blocked_lock
>>>>      ocfs2_unblock_lock
>>>>          Reference to ::set_lvb since LOCK_TYPE_USES_LVB is set.
>>>>
>>> the set_lvb callback function is not necessary, if we update DLM lock value
>> by ourselves before unlock.
>>
>> I think this may relates to *LOCK_TYPE_REQUIRES_REFRESH* flag.
> Alright, I think *LOCK_TYPE_REQUIRES_REFRESH* flag is harmless here, although this flag is probably unnecessary.

OK, I agree with adding *LOCK_TYPE_REQUIRES_REFRESH* for now.
Can you give a explanation for my another concern about three nodes' concurrent trimming fs.?

For your convenience, I paste it here:

The LVB passing path should be like below:

NODE 1 lvb (ex granted at time1) -> NODE 2 lvb(ex granted at time2) -> NODE 3 lvb(ex granted at time3).
time1 < time2  < time3

So I think NODE 3 can't obtain LVB from NODE 1 but from NODE 2.
Moreover, if node 1 is the master of trimfs lock resource, node 1's LVB will be updated to be the same as node 2.
  
> 
>> Actually, I don't see why this flag is necessary to _orphan scan_.
>> Why can't _orphan scan_ also set LVB during
>> ocfs2_process_blocked_lock->ocfs2_unblock_lock?
>>
>> And it seems that _orphan scan_ also doesn't need to persist any stuff in
>> LVB into disk.
> More comments, you can look at dlmglue.c file carefully.
> set_lvb is a callback function, which will be invoked automatically before downgrade.
> you can use this mechanism, you also do not do like that.
> you just need to make sure to update DLM lock value before unlock/downgrade.
> 
> Thanks
> Gang
>   
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Changwei
>>
>>> By the way, the code is transparent to the underlying DLM stack (o2cb or
>> pcmk).
>>
>> True.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Gang
>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Changwei
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IOW, three nodes are trying to trimming fs concurrently. Is your patch able
>>>>>> to handle such a scenario?
>>>>> Yes, the patch can handle this case.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Even the second lock request with QUEUE set just follows
>>>>>> ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit() will not get rid of concurrent trimfs.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>>>>> +		if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
>>>>>>>>> +			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>>>>>>> +			ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);
>>>>>>>>> +			goto out_unlock;
>>>>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +		mlog(ML_NOTICE, "Wait for trim on device (%s) to "
>>>>>>>>> +		     "finish, which is running from another node.\n",
>>>>>>>>> +		     osb->dev_str);
>>>>>>>>> +		ret = ocfs2_trim_fs_lock(osb, &info, 0);
>>>>>>>>> +		if (ret < 0) {
>>>>>>>>> +			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>>>>>>> +			ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(), you drop lock. But it is never granted.
>>>>>>>> Still need to drop lock resource?
>>>>>>> Yes, we need to init/uninit fstrim dlm lock resource for each time.
>>>>>>> Otherwise, trylock does not work, this is a little different from other dlm
>>>>>> lock usage in ocfs2.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This point is OK for now, too.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +			goto out_unlock;
>>>>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +		if (info.tf_valid && info.tf_success &&
>>>>>>>>> +		    info.tf_start == start && info.tf_len == len &&
>>>>>>>>> +		    info.tf_minlen == minlen) {
>>>>>>>>> +			/* Avoid sending duplicated trim to a shared device */
>>>>>>>>> +			mlog(ML_NOTICE, "The same trim on device (%s) was "
>>>>>>>>> +			     "just done from node (%u), return.\n",
>>>>>>>>> +			     osb->dev_str, info.tf_nodenum);
>>>>>>>>> +			range->len = info.tf_trimlen;
>>>>>>>>> +			goto out_trimunlock;
>>>>>>>>> +		}
>>>>>>>>> +	}
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	info.tf_nodenum = osb->node_num;
>>>>>>>>> +	info.tf_start = start;
>>>>>>>>> +	info.tf_len = len;
>>>>>>>>> +	info.tf_minlen = minlen;
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we faild during dong trimfs, I think we should not cache above info in
>>>>>>>> LVB.
>>>>>>> It is necessary, if the second node is waiting the first node, the first
>>>>>> node fails to do fstrim,
>>>>>>> the first node should update dlm lock's value, then the second node can get
>>>>>> the latest dlm lock value (rather than the last time DLM lock value),
>>>>>>> the second node will do the fstrim again, since the first node has failed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, it makes scene.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> BTW, it seems that this patch is on top of  'try lock' patches which you
>>>>>>>> previously sent out.
>>>>>>>> Are they related?
>>>>>>> try lock patch is related to non-block aio support for ocfs2.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>> Gang
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Changwei
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>       	/* Determine first and last group to examine based on start and len */
>>>>>>>>>       	first_group = ocfs2_which_cluster_group(main_bm_inode, start);
>>>>>>>>>       	if (first_group == osb->first_cluster_group_blkno)
>>>>>>>>> @@ -7463,6 +7500,13 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct
>>>>>>>> fstrim_range *range)
>>>>>>>>>       			group += ocfs2_clusters_to_blocks(sb, osb->bitmap_cpg);
>>>>>>>>>       	}
>>>>>>>>>       	range->len = trimmed * sb->s_blocksize;
>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>> +	info.tf_trimlen = range->len;
>>>>>>>>> +	info.tf_success = (ret ? 0 : 1);
>>>>>>>>> +	pinfo = &info;
>>>>>>>>> +out_trimunlock:
>>>>>>>>> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_unlock(osb, pinfo);
>>>>>>>>> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);
>>>>>>>>>       out_unlock:
>>>>>>>>>       	ocfs2_inode_unlock(main_bm_inode, 0);
>>>>>>>>>       	brelse(main_bm_bh);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists