(2014/09/18 17:55), Qu Wenruo wrote:
> The following commit enhanced the merge_extent_mapping() to reduce
> fragment in extent map tree, but it can't handle case which existing
> lies before map_start:
> 51f39 btrfs: Use right extent length when inserting overlap extent map.
>
> [BUG]
> When existing extent map's start is before map_start,
> the em->len will be minus, which will corrupt the extent map and fail to
> insert the new extent map.
> This will happen when someone get a large extent map, but when it is
> going to insert it into extent map tree, some one has already commit
> some write and split the huge extent into small parts.
>
> [REPRODUCER]
> It is very easy to tiger using filebench with randomrw personality.
> It is about 100% to reproduce when using 8G preallocated file in 60s
> randonrw test.
>
> [FIX]
> This patch can now handle any existing extent position.
> Since it does not directly use existing->start, now it will find the
> previous and next extent around map_start.
> So the old existing->start < map_start bug will never happen again.
>
> [ENHANCE]
> This patch will insert the best fitted extent map into extent map tree,
> other than the oldest [map_start, map_start + sectorsize) or the
> relatively newer but not perfect [map_start, existing->start).
>
> The patch will first search existing extent that does not intersects with
> the desired map range [map_start, map_start + len).
> The existing extent will be either before or behind map_start, and based
> on the existing extent, we can find out the previous and next extent
> around map_start.
>
> So the best fitted extent would be [prev->end, next->start).
> For prev or next is not found, em->start would be prev->end and em->end
> wold be next->start.
>
> With this patch, the fragment in extent map tree should be reduced much
> more than the 51f39 commit and reduce an unneeded extent map tree search.
>
> Reported-by: Tsutomu Itoh <t-i...@jp.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwen...@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.li....@oracle.com>
Tested-by: Satoru Takeuchi <takeuchi_sat...@jp.fujitsu.com>
Sorry to late reply. I confirmed this problem happens without
this patch and does not happen with this patch.
Thanks,
Satoru
> ---
> changelog:
> v2:
> Liu Bo points out that the if() use 'start + len <= existing->start'
> is not equal to original if(), which may cause problem in no-holes
> mode.
> ---
> fs/btrfs/inode.c | 79
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 57 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> index 016c403..b3864b7 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
> @@ -6191,21 +6191,60 @@ out_fail_inode:
> goto out_fail;
> }
>
> +/* Find next extent map of a given extent map, caller needs to ensure locks
> */
> +static struct extent_map *next_extent_map(struct extent_map *em)
> +{
> + struct rb_node *next;
> +
> + next = rb_next(&em->rb_node);
> + if (!next)
> + return NULL;
> + return container_of(next, struct extent_map, rb_node);
> +}
> +
> +static struct extent_map *prev_extent_map(struct extent_map *em)
> +{
> + struct rb_node *prev;
> +
> + prev = rb_prev(&em->rb_node);
> + if (!prev)
> + return NULL;
> + return container_of(prev, struct extent_map, rb_node);
> +}
> +
> /* helper for btfs_get_extent. Given an existing extent in the tree,
> + * the existing extent is the nearest extent to map_start,
> * and an extent that you want to insert, deal with overlap and insert
> - * the new extent into the tree.
> + * the best fitted new extent into the tree.
> */
> static int merge_extent_mapping(struct extent_map_tree *em_tree,
> struct extent_map *existing,
> struct extent_map *em,
> u64 map_start)
> {
> + struct extent_map *prev;
> + struct extent_map *next;
> + u64 start;
> + u64 end;
> u64 start_diff;
>
> BUG_ON(map_start < em->start || map_start >= extent_map_end(em));
> - start_diff = map_start - em->start;
> - em->start = map_start;
> - em->len = existing->start - em->start;
> +
> + if (existing->start > map_start) {
> + next = existing;
> + prev = prev_extent_map(next);
> + } else {
> + prev = existing;
> + next = next_extent_map(prev);
> + }
> +
> + start = prev ? extent_map_end(prev) : em->start;
> + start = max_t(u64, start, em->start);
> + end = next ? next->start : extent_map_end(em);
> + end = min_t(u64, end, extent_map_end(em));
> + start_diff = start - em->start;
> + em->start = start;
> + em->len = end - start;
> if (em->block_start < EXTENT_MAP_LAST_BYTE &&
> !test_bit(EXTENT_FLAG_COMPRESSED, &em->flags)) {
> em->block_start += start_diff;
> @@ -6482,25 +6521,21 @@ insert:
>
> ret = 0;
>
> - existing = lookup_extent_mapping(em_tree, start, len);
> - if (existing && (existing->start > start ||
> - existing->start + existing->len <= start)) {
> + existing = search_extent_mapping(em_tree, start, len);
> + /*
> + * existing will always be non-NULL, since there must be
> + * extent causing the -EEXIST.
> + */
> + if (start >= extent_map_end(existing) ||
> + start < existing->start) {
> + /*
> + * The existing extent map is the one nearest to
> + * the [start, start + len) range which overlaps
> + */
> + err = merge_extent_mapping(em_tree, existing,
> + em, start);
> free_extent_map(existing);
> - existing = NULL;
> - }
> - if (!existing) {
> - existing = lookup_extent_mapping(em_tree, em->start,
> - em->len);
> - if (existing) {
> - err = merge_extent_mapping(em_tree, existing,
> - em, start);
> - free_extent_map(existing);
> - if (err) {
> - free_extent_map(em);
> - em = NULL;
> - }
> - } else {
> - err = -EIO;
> + if (err) {
> free_extent_map(em);
> em = NULL;
> }
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
