From 7367253a351ef7202d215d3145d7e83e1472be7d Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Qu Wenruo Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 14:34:59 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: subpage: disable inline extent creation [BUG] When running the following fsx command (extracted from generic/127) on subpage filesystem, it can create inline extent with regular extents: fsx -q -l 262144 -o 65536 -S 191110531 -N 9057 -R -W $mnt/file > /tmp/fsx The offending extent would look like: item 9 key (257 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 15703 itemsize 14 index 2 namelen 4 name: file item 10 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 14975 itemsize 728 generation 7 type 0 (inline) inline extent data size 707 ram_bytes 707 compression 0 (none) item 11 key (257 EXTENT_DATA 4096) itemoff 14922 itemsize 53 generation 7 type 2 (prealloc) prealloc data disk byte 102346752 nr 4096 prealloc data offset 0 nr 4096 [CAUSE] For subpage filesystem, the writeback is triggered in page units, which means, even if we just want to writeback range [16K, 20K) for 64K page system, we will still try to writeback any dirty sector of range [0, 64K). This is never a problem if sectorsize == PAGE_SIZE, but for subpage, this can cause unexpected problems. For above test case, the last several operations from fsx are: 9055 trunc from 0x40000 to 0x2c3 9057 falloc from 0x164c to 0x19d2 (0x386 bytes) In operation 9055, we dirtied sector [0, 4096), then in falloc, we call btrfs_wait_ordered_range(inode, start=4096, len=4096), only expecting to writeback any dirty data in [4096, 8192), but nothing else. Unfortunately, in subpage case, above btrfs_wait_ordered_range() will trigger writeback of the range [0, 64K), which includes the data at [0, 4096). And since at the call site, we haven't yet increased i_size, which is still 707, this means cow_file_range() can insert an inline extent. Resulting above inline + regular extent. [WORKAROUND] I don't really have any good short-term solution yet, as this means all operations that would trigger writeback need to be reviewed for any i_size change. So here I choose to disable inline extent creation for subpage case as a workaround. We have done tons of work just to avoid such extent, so I don't to create an exception just for subpage. This only affects inline extent creation, subpage has no problem reading existing inline extents at all. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo Signed-off-by: David Sterba --- fs/btrfs/inode.c | 18 ++++++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c index ae9e4ad..cade9a2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c @@ -681,7 +681,11 @@ again: } } cont: - if (start == 0) { + /* + * Check cow_file_range() for why we don't even try to create inline + * extent for subpage case. + */ + if (start == 0 && fs_info->sectorsize == PAGE_SIZE) { /* lets try to make an inline extent */ if (ret || total_in < actual_end) { /* we didn't compress the entire range, try @@ -1079,7 +1083,17 @@ static noinline int cow_file_range(struct btrfs_inode *inode, inode_should_defrag(inode, start, end, num_bytes, SZ_64K); - if (start == 0) { + /* + * Due to the page size limit, for subpage we can only trigger the + * writeback for the dirty sectors of page, that means data writeback + * is doing more writeback than what we want. + * + * This is especially unexpected for some call sites like fallocate, + * where we only increase i_size after everything is done. + * This means we can trigger inline extent even if we didn't want to. + * So here we skip inline extent creation completely. + */ + if (start == 0 && fs_info->sectorsize == PAGE_SIZE) { /* lets try to make an inline extent */ ret = cow_file_range_inline(inode, start, end, 0, BTRFS_COMPRESS_NONE, NULL); -- 2.7.4