kernel.git/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h, branch linux-6.3.y

bcache:: fix repeated words in comments

2022-09-19T17:12:35Z

Delete the redundant word 'we'. Signed-off-by: Jilin Yuan Signed-off-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220919161647.81238-5-colyli@suse.de Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

bcache: avoid unnecessary soft lockup in kworker update_writeback_rate()

2022-05-28T12:48:26Z

The kworker routine update_writeback_rate() is schedued to update the writeback rate in every 5 seconds by default. Before calling __update_writeback_rate() to do real job, semaphore dc->writeback_lock should be held by the kworker routine. At the same time, bcache writeback thread routine bch_writeback_thread() also needs to hold dc->writeback_lock before flushing dirty data back into the backing device. If the dirty data set is large, it might be very long time for bch_writeback_thread() to scan all dirty buckets and releases dc->writeback_lock. In such case update_writeback_rate() can be starved for long enough time so that kernel reports a soft lockup warn- ing started like: watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#246 stuck for 23s! [kworker/246:31:179713] Such soft lockup condition is unnecessary, because after the writeback thread finishes its job and releases dc->writeback_lock, the kworker update_writeback_rate() may continue to work and everything is fine indeed. This patch avoids the unnecessary soft lockup by the following method, - Add new member to struct cached_dev - dc->rate_update_retry (0 by default) - In update_writeback_rate() call down_read_trylock(&dc->writeback_lock) firstly, if it fails then lock contention happens. - If dc->rate_update_retry <= BCH_WBRATE_UPDATE_MAX_SKIPS (15), doesn't acquire the lock and reschedules the kworker for next try. - If dc->rate_update_retry > BCH_WBRATE_UPDATE_MAX_SKIPS, no retry anymore and call down_read(&dc->writeback_lock) to wait for the lock. By the above method, at worst case update_writeback_rate() may retry for 1+ minutes before blocking on dc->writeback_lock by calling down_read(). For a 4TB cache device with 1TB dirty data, 90%+ of the unnecessary soft lockup warning message can be avoided. When retrying to acquire dc->writeback_lock in update_writeback_rate(), of course the writeback rate cannot be updated. It is fair, because when the kworker is blocked on the lock contention of dc->writeback_lock, the writeback rate cannot be updated neither. This change follows Jens Axboe's suggestion to a more clear and simple version. Signed-off-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220528124550.32834-2-colyli@suse.de Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

bcache: move uapi header bcache.h to bcache code directory

2021-10-29T12:43:21Z

The header file include/uapi/linux/bcache.h is not really a user space API heaer. This file defines the ondisk format of bcache internal meta data but no one includes it from user space, bcache-tools has its own copy of this header with minor modification. Therefore, this patch moves include/uapi/linux/bcache.h to bcache code directory as drivers/md/bcache/bcache_ondisk.h. Suggested-by: Arnd Bergmann Suggested-by: Christoph Hellwig Signed-off-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211029060930.119923-2-colyli@suse.de Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

bcache: remove the backing_dev_name field from struct cached_dev

2021-10-20T14:40:54Z

Just use the %pg format specifier to print the name directly. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Signed-off-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20211020143812.6403-7-colyli@suse.de Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

bcache: remove the cache_dev_name field from struct cache

2021-10-20T14:40:54Z

bcache: remove bcache device self-defined readahead

2021-06-08T21:06:03Z

For read cache missing, bcache defines a readahead size for the read I/O request to the backing device for the missing data. This readahead size is initialized to 0, and almost no one uses it to avoid unnecessary read amplifying onto backing device and write amplifying onto cache device. Considering upper layer file system code has readahead logic allready and works fine with readahead_cache_policy sysfile interface, we don't have to keep bcache self-defined readahead anymore. This patch removes the bcache self-defined readahead for cache missing request for backing device, and the readahead sysfs file interfaces are removed as well. This is the preparation for next patch to fix potential kernel panic due to oversized request in a simpler method. Reported-by: Alexander Ullrich Reported-by: Diego Ercolani Reported-by: Jan Szubiak Reported-by: Marco Rebhan Reported-by: Matthias Ferdinand Reported-by: Victor Westerhuis Reported-by: Vojtech Pavlik Reported-and-tested-by: Rolf Fokkens Reported-and-tested-by: Thorsten Knabe Signed-off-by: Coly Li Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org Cc: Kent Overstreet Cc: Nix Cc: Takashi Iwai Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210607125052.21277-2-colyli@suse.de Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

bcache: remove PTR_CACHE

2021-04-11T14:37:55Z

Remove the PTR_CACHE inline and replace it with a direct dereference of c->cache. (Coly Li: fix the typo from PTR_BUCKET to PTR_CACHE in commit log) Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig Signed-off-by: Coly Li Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20210411134316.80274-3-colyli@suse.de Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

bcache: Move journal work to new flush wq

2021-02-10T15:06:00Z

This is potentially long running and not latency sensitive, let's get it out of the way of other latency sensitive events. As observed in the previous commit, the `system_wq` comes easily congested by bcache, and this fixes a few more stalls I was observing every once in a while. Let's not make this `WQ_MEM_RECLAIM` as it showed to reduce performance of boot and file system operations in my tests. Also, without `WQ_MEM_RECLAIM`, I no longer see desktop stalls. This matches the previous behavior as `system_wq` also does no memory reclaim: > // workqueue.c: > system_wq = alloc_workqueue("events", 0, 0); Cc: Coly Li Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+ Signed-off-by: Kai Krakow Signed-off-by: Coly Li Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

Revert "bcache: Kill btree_io_wq"

2021-02-10T15:06:00Z

This reverts commit 56b30770b27d54d68ad51eccc6d888282b568cee. With the btree using the `system_wq`, I seem to see a lot more desktop latency than I should. After some more investigation, it looks like the original assumption of 56b3077 no longer is true, and bcache has a very high potential of congesting the `system_wq`. In turn, this introduces laggy desktop performance, IO stalls (at least with btrfs), and input events may be delayed. So let's revert this. It's important to note that the semantics of using `system_wq` previously mean that `btree_io_wq` should be created before and destroyed after other bcache wqs to keep the same assumptions. Cc: Coly Li Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.4+ Signed-off-by: Kai Krakow Signed-off-by: Coly Li Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe

bcache: consider the fragmentation when update the writeback rate

2021-02-10T15:05:59Z

Current way to calculate the writeback rate only considered the dirty sectors, this usually works fine when the fragmentation is not high, but it will give us unreasonable small rate when we are under a situation that very few dirty sectors consumed a lot dirty buckets. In some case, the dirty bucekts can reached to CUTOFF_WRITEBACK_SYNC while the dirty data(sectors) not even reached the writeback_percent, the writeback rate will still be the minimum value (4k), thus it will cause all the writes to be stucked in a non-writeback mode because of the slow writeback. We accelerate the rate in 3 stages with different aggressiveness, the first stage starts when dirty buckets percent reach above BCH_WRITEBACK_FRAGMENT_THRESHOLD_LOW (50), the second is BCH_WRITEBACK_FRAGMENT_THRESHOLD_MID (57), the third is BCH_WRITEBACK_FRAGMENT_THRESHOLD_HIGH (64). By default the first stage tries to writeback the amount of dirty data in one bucket (on average) in (1 / (dirty_buckets_percent - 50)) second, the second stage tries to writeback the amount of dirty data in one bucket in (1 / (dirty_buckets_percent - 57)) * 100 millisecond, the third stage tries to writeback the amount of dirty data in one bucket in (1 / (dirty_buckets_percent - 64)) millisecond. the initial rate at each stage can be controlled by 3 configurable parameters writeback_rate_fp_term_{low|mid|high}, they are by default 1, 10, 1000, the hint of IO throughput that these values are trying to achieve is described by above paragraph, the reason that I choose those value as default is based on the testing and the production data, below is some details: A. When it comes to the low stage, there is still a bit far from the 70 threshold, so we only want to give it a little bit push by setting the term to 1, it means the initial rate will be 170 if the fragment is 6, it is calculated by bucket_size/fragment, this rate is very small, but still much reasonable than the minimum 8. For a production bcache with unheavy workload, if the cache device is bigger than 1 TB, it may take hours to consume 1% buckets, so it is very possible to reclaim enough dirty buckets in this stage, thus to avoid entering the next stage. B. If the dirty buckets ratio didn't turn around during the first stage, it comes to the mid stage, then it is necessary for mid stage to be more aggressive than low stage, so i choose the initial rate to be 10 times more than low stage, that means 1700 as the initial rate if the fragment is 6. This is some normal rate we usually see for a normal workload when writeback happens because of writeback_percent. C. If the dirty buckets ratio didn't turn around during the low and mid stages, it comes to the third stage, and it is the last chance that we can turn around to avoid the horrible cutoff writeback sync issue, then we choose 100 times more aggressive than the mid stage, that means 170000 as the initial rate if the fragment is 6. This is also inferred from a production bcache, I've got one week's writeback rate data from a production bcache which has quite heavy workloads, again, the writeback is triggered by the writeback percent, the highest rate area is around 100000 to 240000, so I believe this kind aggressiveness at this stage is reasonable for production. And it should be mostly enough because the hint is trying to reclaim 1000 bucket per second, and from that heavy production env, it is consuming 50 bucket per second on average in one week's data. Option writeback_consider_fragment is to control whether we want this feature to be on or off, it's on by default. Lastly, below is the performance data for all the testing result, including the data from production env: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1AmbIEa_2MhB9bqhC3rfga9tp7n9YX9PLn0jSUxscVW0/edit?usp=sharing Signed-off-by: dongdong tao Signed-off-by: Coly Li Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe