Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 4 Aug 2021 17:52:14 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Wang Jianchao <jianchao.wan9@gmail.com>
Cc:     Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev>,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH V3 5/5] ext4: make fallocate retry when err is ENOSPC
Message-ID: <20210804155214.GN4578@quack2.suse.cz>
References: <20210724074124.25731-1-jianchao.wan9@gmail.com>
 <20210724074124.25731-6-jianchao.wan9@gmail.com>
 <0ac551b1-6295-9117-757d-12bee70de588@linux.dev>
 <2888807f-2822-a73d-4c01-f073f8fffae2@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <2888807f-2822-a73d-4c01-f073f8fffae2@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon 26-07-21 15:05:41, Wang Jianchao wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2021/7/26 11:40 AM, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On 7/24/21 3:41 PM, Wang Jianchao wrote:
> >> From: Wang Jianchao <wangjianchao@kuaishou.com>
> >>
> >> The blocks may be waiting for journal commit to be freed back to
> >> mb buddy. Let fallocate wait and retry in that case.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Jianchao <wangjianchao@kuaishou.com>
> >> ---
> >> ? fs/ext4/extents.c | 6 +++++-
> >> ? 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> >> index 92ad64b89d9b..ad0b874d3448 100644
> >> --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> >> +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> >> @@ -4635,7 +4635,7 @@ long ext4_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> >> ????? struct inode *inode = file_inode(file);
> >> ????? loff_t new_size = 0;
> >> ????? unsigned int max_blocks;
> >> -??? int ret = 0;
> >> +??? int ret = 0, retries = 0;
> >> ????? int flags;
> >> ????? ext4_lblk_t lblk;
> >> ????? unsigned int blkbits = inode->i_blkbits;
> >> @@ -4656,6 +4656,7 @@ long ext4_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> >> ?????????????? FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE))
> >> ????????? return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> ? +retry:
> >> ????? ext4_fc_start_update(inode);
> >> ? ????? if (mode & FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE) {
> >> @@ -4722,6 +4723,9 @@ long ext4_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len)
> >> ????? trace_ext4_fallocate_exit(inode, offset, max_blocks, ret);
> >> ? exit:
> >> ????? ext4_fc_stop_update(inode);
> >> +??? if (ret == -ENOSPC && ext4_should_retry_alloc(inode->i_sb, &retries))
> >> +??????? goto retry;
> >> +
> > 
> > Not sure if it is necessary since ext4_alloc_file_blocks already retries allocate.
> 
> Yes, this patch should be get rid of.  But it is indeed helpful to fix
> the xfstest generic/371 which does concurrently write/rm and
> fallocate/rm. I'll figure out some other way to improve that

Note that the retry logic is only a heuristic. It is not guaranteed any
number of retries is enough, we just do three to not give up too easily...
Your patch effectively raised number of retries to 9 so that may have
masked the issue. But I don't think so high number of retries is a sensible
choice because that way it may take too long to return ENOSPC.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR