On Wed, Aug 29, 2018 at 05:40:12PM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 29.08.2018 16:53, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2018/8/29 下午9:43, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 29.08.2018 08:15, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>> Function btrfs_trim_fs() doesn't handle errors in a consistent way, if
> >>> error happens when trimming existing block groups, it will skip the
> >>> remaining blocks and continue to trim unallocated space for each device.
> >>>
> >>> And the return value will only reflect the final error from device
> >>> trimming.
> >>>
> >>> This patch will fix such behavior by:
> >>>
> >>> 1) Recording last error from block group or device trimming
> >>> So return value will also reflect the last error during trimming.
> >>> Make developer more aware of the problem.
> >>>
> >>> 2) Continuing trimming if we can
> >>> If we failed to trim one block group or device, we could still try
> >>> next block group or device.
> >>>
> >>> 3) Report number of failures during block group and device trimming
> >>> So it would be less noisy, but still gives user a brief summary of
> >>> what's going wrong.
> >>>
> >>> Such behavior can avoid confusion for case like failure to trim the
> >>> first block group and then only unallocated space is trimmed.
> >>>
> >>> Reported-by: Chris Murphy <li...@colorremedies.com>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com>
> >>> ---
> >>> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 57 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> >>> 1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> >>> index de6f75f5547b..7768f206196a 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> >>> @@ -10832,6 +10832,16 @@ static int btrfs_trim_free_extents(struct
> >>> btrfs_device *device,
> >>> return ret;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> +/*
> >>> + * Trim the whole fs, by:
> >>> + * 1) Trimming free space in each block group
> >>> + * 2) Trimming unallocated space in each device
> >>> + *
> >>> + * Will try to continue trimming even if we failed to trim one block
> >>> group or
> >>> + * device.
> >>> + * The return value will be the last error during trim.
> >>> + * Or 0 if nothing wrong happened.
> >>> + */
> >>> int btrfs_trim_fs(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, struct fstrim_range
> >>> *range)
> >>> {
> >>> struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache = NULL;
> >>> @@ -10842,6 +10852,10 @@ int btrfs_trim_fs(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> >>> struct fstrim_range *range)
> >>> u64 end;
> >>> u64 trimmed = 0;
> >>> u64 total_bytes = btrfs_super_total_bytes(fs_info->super_copy);
> >>> + u64 bg_failed = 0;
> >>> + u64 dev_failed = 0;
> >>> + int bg_ret = 0;
> >>> + int dev_ret = 0;
> >>> int ret = 0;
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> @@ -10852,7 +10866,7 @@ int btrfs_trim_fs(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> >>> struct fstrim_range *range)
> >>> else
> >>> cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, range->start);
> >>>
> >>> - while (cache) {
> >>> + for (; cache; cache = next_block_group(fs_info, cache)) {
> >>> if (cache->key.objectid >= (range->start + range->len)) {
> >>> btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
> >>> break;
> >>> @@ -10866,45 +10880,56 @@ int btrfs_trim_fs(struct btrfs_fs_info
> >>> *fs_info, struct fstrim_range *range)
> >>> if (!block_group_cache_done(cache)) {
> >>> ret = cache_block_group(cache, 0);
> >>> if (ret) {
> >>> - btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
> >>> - break;
> >>> + bg_failed++;
> >>> + bg_ret = ret;
> >>> + continue;
> >>> }
> >>> ret = wait_block_group_cache_done(cache);
> >>> if (ret) {
> >>> - btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
> >>> - break;
> >>> + bg_failed++;
> >>> + bg_ret = ret;
> >>> + continue;
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>> - ret = btrfs_trim_block_group(cache,
> >>> - &group_trimmed,
> >>> - start,
> >>> - end,
> >>> - range->minlen);
> >>> + ret = btrfs_trim_block_group(cache, &group_trimmed,
> >>> + start, end, range->minlen);
> >>>
> >>> trimmed += group_trimmed;
> >>> if (ret) {
> >>> - btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
> >>> - break;
> >>> + bg_failed++;
> >>> + bg_ret = ret;
> >>> + continue;
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>> -
> >>> - cache = next_block_group(fs_info, cache);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> + if (bg_failed)
> >>> + btrfs_warn(fs_info,
> >>> + "failed to trim %llu block group(s), last error was %d",
> >>> + bg_failed, bg_ret);
> >>
> >> IMO this error handling strategy doesn't really bring any value. The
> >> only thing which the user really gathers from that error message is that
> >> N block groups failed. But there is no information whether it failed due
> >> to read failure hence cannot load the freespace cache or there was some
> >> error during the actual trimming.
> >>
> >> I agree that if we fail for 1 bg we shouldn't terminate the whole
> >> process but just skip it. However, a more useful error handling strategy
> >> would be to have btrfs_warns for every failed block group for every
> >> failed function.
> >
> > Yep, previous version goes that way.
> >
> > But even for btrfs_warn_rl() it could be too noisy.
> > And just as commented by David, user may not even care, thus such too
> > noisy report makes not much sense.
> >
> > E.g. if something really went wrong and make the fs RO, then there will
> > be tons of error messages flooding dmesg (although most of them will be
> > rate limited), and really makes no sense.
>
> Well in that case I don't see value in retaining the last error message
> so you can just leave the "%llu block groups failed to be trimmed"
> messages. The last error is not meaningful.
Do you mean the error value of the last error, saved to the bg_ret
variable? I'd say it's at least something to be returned to the user,
I find the bare "%llu failed to trim" not meaningful.
We had a discussion with Qu last time how to best report the errors from
the trim loops so I'm open to suggestions, but I don't see other options
if we don't want to flood the logs.
