IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
I've been running a stress test that runs 20 workers in their own
subvolume, which are running an fsstress instance with 4 threads per
worker, which is 80 total fsstress threads. In addition to this I'm
running balance in the background as well as creating and deleting
snapshots. This test takes around 12 hours to run normally, going
slower and slower as the test goes on.
The reason for this is because fsstress is running fsync sometimes, and
because we're messing with block groups we often fall through to
btrfs_commit_transaction, so will often have 20-30 threads all calling
btrfs_commit_transaction at the same time.
These all get stuck contending on the extent tree while they try to run
delayed refs during the initial part of the commit.
This is suboptimal, really because the extent tree is a single point of
failure we only want one thread acting on that tree at once to reduce
lock contention.
Fix this by making the flushing mechanism a bit operation, to make it
easy to use test_and_set_bit() in order to make sure only one task does
this initial flush.
Once we're into the transaction commit we only have one thread doing
delayed ref running, it's just this initial pre-flush that is
problematic. With this patch my stress test takes around 90 minutes to
run, instead of 12 hours.
The memory barrier is not necessary for the flushing bit as it's
ordered, unlike plain int. The transaction state accessed in
btrfs_should_end_transaction could be affected by that too as it's not
always used under transaction lock. Upon Nikolay's analysis in [1]
it's not necessary:
In should_end_transaction it's read without holding any locks. (U)
It's modified in btrfs_cleanup_transaction without holding the
fs_info->trans_lock (U), but the STATE_ERROR flag is going to be set.
set in cleanup_transaction under fs_info->trans_lock (L)
set in btrfs_commit_trans to COMMIT_START under fs_info->trans_lock.(L)
set in btrfs_commit_trans to COMMIT_DOING under fs_info->trans_lock.(L)
set in btrfs_commit_trans to COMMIT_UNBLOCK under
fs_info->trans_lock.(L)
set in btrfs_commit_trans to COMMIT_COMPLETED without locks but at this
point the transaction is finished and fs_info->running_trans is NULL (U
but irrelevant).
So by the looks of it we can have a concurrent READ race with a WRITE,
due to reads not taking a lock. In this case what we want to ensure is
we either see new or old state. I consulted with Will Deacon and he said
that in such a case we'd want to annotate the accesses to ->state with
(READ|WRITE)_ONCE so as to avoid a theoretical tear, in this case I
don't think this could happen but I imagine at some point KCSAN would
flag such an access as racy (which it is).
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/e1fd5cc1-0f28-f670-69f4-e9958b4964e6@suse.com
Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
[ add comments regarding memory barrier ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
e19eb11f4f