Message-ID: <Z1I74KeyZRv2pBBT@dread.disaster.area>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2024 10:48:48 +1100
From: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To: Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@...il.com>
Cc: alexjlzheng@...cent.com, cem@...nel.org, chandanbabu@...nel.org,
	dchinner@...hat.com, djwong@...nel.org, hch@...radead.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v2] xfs: fix the entry condition of exact EOF
 block allocation optimization

On Thu, Dec 05, 2024 at 08:18:02PM +0800, Jinliang Zheng wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Dec 2024 07:40:20 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 31, 2024 at 07:11:32PM +0800, Jinliang Zheng wrote:
> > > When we call create(), lseek() and write() sequentially, offset != 0
> > > cannot be used as a judgment condition for whether the file already
> > > has extents.
> > > 
> > > Furthermore, when xfs_bmap_adjacent() has not given a better blkno,
> > > it is not necessary to use exact EOF block allocation.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Jinliang Zheng <alexjlzheng@...cent.com>
> > > ---
> > > Changelog:
> > > - V2: Fix the entry condition
> > > - V1: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/ZyFJm7xg7Msd6eVr@dread.disaster.area/T/#t
> > > ---
> > >  fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 12 +++++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > > index 36dd08d13293..c1e5372b6b2e 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c
> > > @@ -3531,12 +3531,14 @@ xfs_bmap_btalloc_at_eof(
> > >  	int			error;
> > >  
> > >  	/*
> > > -	 * If there are already extents in the file, try an exact EOF block
> > > -	 * allocation to extend the file as a contiguous extent. If that fails,
> > > -	 * or it's the first allocation in a file, just try for a stripe aligned
> > > -	 * allocation.
> > > +	 * If there are already extents in the file, and xfs_bmap_adjacent() has
> > > +	 * given a better blkno, try an exact EOF block allocation to extend the
> > > +	 * file as a contiguous extent. If that fails, or it's the first
> > > +	 * allocation in a file, just try for a stripe aligned allocation.
> > >  	 */
> > > -	if (ap->offset) {
> > > +	if (ap->prev.br_startoff != NULLFILEOFF &&
> > > +	     !isnullstartblock(ap->prev.br_startblock) &&
> > > +	     xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid(ap, ap->blkno, ap->prev.br_startblock)) {
> > 
> > There's no need for calling xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid() here -
> > we know that ap->blkno is valid because the
> > bounds checking has already been done by xfs_bmap_adjacent().
> 
> I'm sorry that I didn't express it clearly, what I meant here is: if we want
> to extend the file as a contiguous extent, then ap->blkno must be a better
> choice given by xfs_bmap_adjacent() than other default values.

Yes, but xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid() does not tell us that.

> /*
>  * If allocating at eof, and there's a previous real block,
>  * try to use its last block as our starting point.
>  */
> if (ap->eof && ap->prev.br_startoff != NULLFILEOFF &&
>     !isnullstartblock(ap->prev.br_startblock) &&
>     xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid(ap,
> 		ap->prev.br_startblock + ap->prev.br_blockcount,
> 		ap->prev.br_startblock)) {
> 	ap->blkno = ap->prev.br_startblock + ap->prev.br_blockcount; <--- better A

For people reading along: This sets the allocation target to the
end of the previous physical extent.

> 	/*
> 	 * Adjust for the gap between prevp and us.
> 	 */
> 	adjust = ap->offset -
> 		(ap->prev.br_startoff + ap->prev.br_blockcount);
> 	if (adjust && xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid(ap, ap->blkno + adjust,
> 			ap->prev.br_startblock))
> 		ap->blkno += adjust;                                 <--- better B

And this adjusts for the file offset of the new EOF allocation
being a distance beyond the previous extent. i.e.

file offset:	0	EOF	    ap->offset
layout:		+--prev--+-----hole-----+--new EOF allocation--+

After allocation:
file offset:	0	oEOF	      offset		      EOF
layout:		+--prev--+-----hole-----+--new EOF allocation--+
physical:	+--used--+-----free-----+-------used-----------+

And now when the write to fill the file offset hole (e.g. because of
racing concurrent extending AIO+DIO writes being issued out of
order), we end up with this non-EOF NEAR allocation being set up
over the hole in the file:

file offset:	0      ap->offset      			      EOF
layout:		+--prev--+-----hole-----+--------next----------+
                       ap->blkno

And the NEAR allocation will find the exact free space we left to
fill that hole, resulting in a file that looks like this:

file offset:	0					      EOF
layout:		+----------------------------------------------+
physical:	+----------------------------------------------+

i.e. a single contiguous extent.

> 	return true;

And it's important to note that xfs_bmap_adjacent returns true if
it selects a new target for exact allocation.

> }
> 
> Only when we reach 'better A' or 'better B' of xfs_bmap_adjacent() above, it
> is worth trying to use xfs_alloc_vextent_EXACT_bno(). Otherwise, NEAR is
> more suitable than EXACT.

Well, yes, that is exactly what the code was -trying- to do.
It was using ap->offset as a proxy for "there is a previous extent"
rather than an explicit check for "do we need exact allocation"

As you've rightly pointed out - this code is not correct in all
situations, nor optimal for all situations.

What I've been trying to point out to you is that your solution is
not optimal, either. 

> Therefore, we need xfs_bmap_adjacent() to determine whether xfs_bmap_adjacent()
> has indeed modified ap->blkno.

It already does, but we ignore it. If we want use exact allocation
only when we are doing EOF allocation:

Perhaps:

-	xfs_bmap_adjacent(ap);
+	if (!xfs_bmap_adjacent(ap))
+		ap->eof = false;

And then in xfs_bmap_btalloc_at_eof() all we need is

-	if (ap->offset) {
+	if (ap->eof) {

i.e. we only do exact allocation at EOF when xfs_bmap_adjacent has
set a target we want exact allocation for.

(note: don't confuse ap->eof and ap->aeof)

> > Actually, for another patch, the bounds checking in
> > xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid() is incorrect. What happens if the last AG
> > is a runt? i.e. it open codes xfs_verify_fsbno() and gets it wrong.
> 
> For general scenarios, I agree.

This *is* a general scenario. Every single extending allocation goes
through this path.

> But here, the parameters x and y of xfs_bmap_adjacent_valid() are both derived
> from ap->prev. Is it possible that it exceeds mp->m_sb.sb_agcount or
> mp->m_sb.sb_agblocks?

I think you missed the significance of the gap (file offset)
adjustment.

Write a couple of TB beyond EOF and see what happens. Then allocate
a file in the last AG that is a runt, and try to write a distance
beyond EOF that will land the target blkno between the size of
the runt AG and mp->m_sb.sb_agcount....

Hint: runt AG length < AGBNO(ap->blkno) < mp->m_sb.sb_agcount.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com

Powered by blists - more mailing lists