Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] btrfs: ensure relocation never runs while we have send operations running
From: David Sterba <hidden>
Date: 2021-06-22 11:08:56
On Mon, Jun 21, 2021 at 11:10:38AM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote:
From: Filipe Manana <redacted>
Relocation and send do not play well together because while send is
running a block group can be relocated, a transaction committed and
the respective disk extents get re-allocated and written to or discarded
while send is about to do something with the extents.
This was explained in commit 9e967495e0e0ae ("Btrfs: prevent send failures
and crashes due to concurrent relocation"), which prevented balance and
send from running in parallel but it did not address one remaining case
where chunk relocation can happen: shrinking a device (and device deletion
which shrinks a device's size to 0 before deleting the device).
We also have now one more case where relocation is triggered: on zoned
filesystems partially used block groups get relocated by a background
thread, introduced in commit 18bb8bbf13c183 ("btrfs: zoned: automatically
reclaim zones").
So make sure that instead of preventing balance from running when there
are ongoing send operations, we prevent relocation from happening.
This uses the infrastructure recently added by a patch that has the
subject: "btrfs: add cancellable chunk relocation support".
Also it adds a spinlock used exclusively for the exclusivity between
send and relocation, as before fs_info->balance_mutex was used, which
would make an attempt to run send to block waiting for balance to
finish, which can take a lot of time on large filesystems.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <redacted>Added to misc-next, thanks.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
@@ -3818,7 +3829,9 @@ static void reloc_chunk_end(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) /* Requested after start, clear bit first so any waiters can continue */ if (atomic_read(&fs_info->reloc_cancel_req) > 0) btrfs_info(fs_info, "chunk relocation canceled during operation"); + spin_lock(&fs_info->send_reloc_lock); clear_and_wake_up_bit(BTRFS_FS_RELOC_RUNNING, &fs_info->flags); + spin_unlock(&fs_info->send_reloc_lock); atomic_set(&fs_info->reloc_cancel_req, 0);
This is an interesting pattern, the lock protects the first part in start and the atomic bit changes and wakeup are for the rest.