Re: [PATCH v15 41/42] btrfs: zoned: reorder log node allocation on zoned filesystem

2021-02-04 Thread David Sterba
On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 02:54:25PM +, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 04/02/2021 12:57, Filipe Manana wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:23 AM Naohiro Aota  wrote:
> >> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> >> @@ -3159,6 +3159,19 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >> list_add_tail(&root_log_ctx.list, 
> >> &log_root_tree->log_ctxs[index2]);
> >> root_log_ctx.log_transid = log_root_tree->log_transid;
> >>
> >> +   if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
> >> +   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> >> +   if (!log_root_tree->node) {
> > 
> > As commented in v14, the log root tree is not protected by
> > fs_info->tree_log_mutex anymore.
> > It is fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex as of 5.10.
> > 
> > Everything else was addressed and looks good.
> > Thanks.
> 
> David, can you add this or should we send an incremental patch?
> This survived fstests -g quick run with lockdep enabled.
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> index 7ba044bfa9b1..36c4a60d20dc 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> @@ -3160,7 +3160,7 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> root_log_ctx.log_transid = log_root_tree->log_transid;
> if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
> -   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> +   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex);
> if (!log_root_tree->node) {
> ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root_tree);
> if (ret) {
> @@ -3169,7 +3169,7 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> goto out;
> }
> }
> -   mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> +   mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex);

Folded to the patch, thanks.


Re: [PATCH v15 41/42] btrfs: zoned: reorder log node allocation on zoned filesystem

2021-02-04 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
On 04/02/2021 16:50, David Sterba wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 04, 2021 at 02:54:25PM +, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>> On 04/02/2021 12:57, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:23 AM Naohiro Aota  wrote:
 --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
 +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
 @@ -3159,6 +3159,19 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 list_add_tail(&root_log_ctx.list, 
 &log_root_tree->log_ctxs[index2]);
 root_log_ctx.log_transid = log_root_tree->log_transid;

 +   if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
 +   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
 +   if (!log_root_tree->node) {
>>>
>>> As commented in v14, the log root tree is not protected by
>>> fs_info->tree_log_mutex anymore.
>>> It is fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex as of 5.10.
>>>
>>> Everything else was addressed and looks good.
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> David, can you add this or should we send an incremental patch?
>> This survived fstests -g quick run with lockdep enabled.
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>> index 7ba044bfa9b1..36c4a60d20dc 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>> @@ -3160,7 +3160,7 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>> root_log_ctx.log_transid = log_root_tree->log_transid;
>> if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
>> -   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>> +   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex);
>> if (!log_root_tree->node) {
>> ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, 
>> log_root_tree);
>> if (ret) {
>> @@ -3169,7 +3169,7 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>> goto out;
>> }
>> }
>> -   mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>> +   mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex);
> 
> Folded to the patch, thanks.
> 

Thanks a lot


Re: [PATCH v15 41/42] btrfs: zoned: reorder log node allocation on zoned filesystem

2021-02-04 Thread Johannes Thumshirn
On 04/02/2021 12:57, Filipe Manana wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:23 AM Naohiro Aota  wrote:
>>
>> This is the 3/3 patch to enable tree-log on zoned filesystems.
>>
>> The allocation order of nodes of "fs_info->log_root_tree" and nodes of
>> "root->log_root" is not the same as the writing order of them. So, the
>> writing causes unaligned write errors.
>>
>> Reorder the allocation of them by delaying allocation of the root node of
>> "fs_info->log_root_tree," so that the node buffers can go out sequentially
>> to devices.
>>
>> Cc: Filipe Manana 
>> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik 
>> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn 
>> Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota 
>> ---
>>  fs/btrfs/disk-io.c  | 12 +++-
>>  fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 27 +--
>>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>> index 84c6650d5ef7..c2576c5fe62e 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
>> @@ -1298,16 +1298,18 @@ int btrfs_init_log_root_tree(struct 
>> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>  struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
>>  {
>> struct btrfs_root *log_root;
>> -   int ret;
>>
>> log_root = alloc_log_tree(trans, fs_info);
>> if (IS_ERR(log_root))
>> return PTR_ERR(log_root);
>>
>> -   ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root);
>> -   if (ret) {
>> -   btrfs_put_root(log_root);
>> -   return ret;
>> +   if (!btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
>> +   int ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root);
>> +
>> +   if (ret) {
>> +   btrfs_put_root(log_root);
>> +   return ret;
>> +   }
>> }
>>
>> WARN_ON(fs_info->log_root_tree);
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>> index 8be3164d4c5d..7ba044bfa9b1 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
>> @@ -3159,6 +3159,19 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>> list_add_tail(&root_log_ctx.list, &log_root_tree->log_ctxs[index2]);
>> root_log_ctx.log_transid = log_root_tree->log_transid;
>>
>> +   if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
>> +   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>> +   if (!log_root_tree->node) {
> 
> As commented in v14, the log root tree is not protected by
> fs_info->tree_log_mutex anymore.
> It is fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex as of 5.10.
> 
> Everything else was addressed and looks good.
> Thanks.

David, can you add this or should we send an incremental patch?
This survived fstests -g quick run with lockdep enabled.

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
index 7ba044bfa9b1..36c4a60d20dc 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
@@ -3160,7 +3160,7 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
root_log_ctx.log_transid = log_root_tree->log_transid;
if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
-   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
+   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex);
if (!log_root_tree->node) {
ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root_tree);
if (ret) {
@@ -3169,7 +3169,7 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
goto out;
}
}
-   mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
+   mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex);
}
/*


Re: [PATCH v15 41/42] btrfs: zoned: reorder log node allocation on zoned filesystem

2021-02-04 Thread Filipe Manana
On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:23 AM Naohiro Aota  wrote:
>
> This is the 3/3 patch to enable tree-log on zoned filesystems.
>
> The allocation order of nodes of "fs_info->log_root_tree" and nodes of
> "root->log_root" is not the same as the writing order of them. So, the
> writing causes unaligned write errors.
>
> Reorder the allocation of them by delaying allocation of the root node of
> "fs_info->log_root_tree," so that the node buffers can go out sequentially
> to devices.
>
> Cc: Filipe Manana 
> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik 
> Signed-off-by: Johannes Thumshirn 
> Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota 
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/disk-io.c  | 12 +++-
>  fs/btrfs/tree-log.c | 27 +--
>  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> index 84c6650d5ef7..c2576c5fe62e 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> @@ -1298,16 +1298,18 @@ int btrfs_init_log_root_tree(struct 
> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>  struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
>  {
> struct btrfs_root *log_root;
> -   int ret;
>
> log_root = alloc_log_tree(trans, fs_info);
> if (IS_ERR(log_root))
> return PTR_ERR(log_root);
>
> -   ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root);
> -   if (ret) {
> -   btrfs_put_root(log_root);
> -   return ret;
> +   if (!btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
> +   int ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root);
> +
> +   if (ret) {
> +   btrfs_put_root(log_root);
> +   return ret;
> +   }
> }
>
> WARN_ON(fs_info->log_root_tree);
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> index 8be3164d4c5d..7ba044bfa9b1 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/tree-log.c
> @@ -3159,6 +3159,19 @@ int btrfs_sync_log(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> list_add_tail(&root_log_ctx.list, &log_root_tree->log_ctxs[index2]);
> root_log_ctx.log_transid = log_root_tree->log_transid;
>
> +   if (btrfs_is_zoned(fs_info)) {
> +   mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> +   if (!log_root_tree->node) {

As commented in v14, the log root tree is not protected by
fs_info->tree_log_mutex anymore.
It is fs_info->tree_root->log_mutex as of 5.10.

Everything else was addressed and looks good.
Thanks.

> +   ret = btrfs_alloc_log_tree_node(trans, log_root_tree);
> +   if (ret) {
> +   mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> +   mutex_unlock(&log_root_tree->log_mutex);
> +   goto out;
> +   }
> +   }
> +   mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> +   }
> +
> /*
>  * Now we are safe to update the log_root_tree because we're under the
>  * log_mutex, and we're a current writer so we're holding the commit
> @@ -3317,12 +3330,14 @@ static void free_log_tree(struct btrfs_trans_handle 
> *trans,
> .process_func = process_one_buffer
> };
>
> -   ret = walk_log_tree(trans, log, &wc);
> -   if (ret) {
> -   if (trans)
> -   btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
> -   else
> -   btrfs_handle_fs_error(log->fs_info, ret, NULL);
> +   if (log->node) {
> +   ret = walk_log_tree(trans, log, &wc);
> +   if (ret) {
> +   if (trans)
> +   btrfs_abort_transaction(trans, ret);
> +   else
> +   btrfs_handle_fs_error(log->fs_info, ret, 
> NULL);
> +   }
> }
>
> clear_extent_bits(&log->dirty_log_pages, 0, (u64)-1,
> --
> 2.30.0
>


-- 
Filipe David Manana,

“Whether you think you can, or you think you can't — you're right.”