Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

[Changwei Ge]

On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote:
> Hi Changwei,
> 
> 
>>>>
>> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote:
>>> Hi Changwei,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> Hi Gang,
>>>>
>>>> On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote:
>>>>> As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via
>>>>> fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk
>>>>> cluster file system, if the user configures a scheduled fstrim
>>>>> job on each file system node, this will trigger multiple nodes
>>>>> trim a shared disk simultaneously, it is very wasteful for CPU
>>>>> and IO consumption, also might negatively affect the lifetime
>>>>> of poor-quality SSD devices.
>>>>> Then, we introduce a trimfs dlm lock to communicate with each
>>>>> other in this case, which will make only one fstrim command to
>>>>> do the trimming on a shared disk among the cluster, the fstrim
>>>>> commands from the other nodes should wait for the first fstrim
>>>>> to finish and returned success directly, to avoid running a the
>>>>> same trim on the shared disk again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare with first version, I change the fstrim commands' returned
>>>>> value and behavior in case which meets a fstrim command is running
>>>>> on a shared disk.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Gang He <ghe@xxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>     fs/ocfs2/alloc.c | 44 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>>     1 file changed, 44 insertions(+)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
>>>>> index ab5105f..5c9c3e2 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/alloc.c
>>>>> @@ -7382,6 +7382,7 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct
>>>> fstrim_range *range)
>>>>>     	struct buffer_head *gd_bh = NULL;
>>>>>     	struct ocfs2_dinode *main_bm;
>>>>>     	struct ocfs2_group_desc *gd = NULL;
>>>>> +	struct ocfs2_trim_fs_info info, *pinfo = NULL;
>>>>
>>>> I think *pinfo* is not necessary.
>>> This pointer is necessary, since it can be NULL or non-NULL depend on the
>> code logic.
>>
>> This point is OK for me.
>>
>>>
>>>>>     
>>>>>     	start = range->start >> osb->s_clustersize_bits;
>>>>>     	len = range->len >> osb->s_clustersize_bits;
>>>>> @@ -7419,6 +7420,42 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct
>>>> fstrim_range *range)
>>>>>     
>>>>>     	trace_ocfs2_trim_fs(start, len, minlen);
>>>>>     
>>>>> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_init(osb);
>>>>> +	ret = ocfs2_trim_fs_lock(osb, NULL, 1);
>>>>
>>>> I don't get why try to lock here and if fails, acquire the same lock again
>>>> later but wait until granted.
>>> Please think about the user case, the patch is only used to handle this
>> case.
>>> When the administer configures a fstrim schedule task on each node, then
>> each node will trigger a fstrim on shared disks concurrently.
>>> In this case, we should avoid duplicated fstrim on a shared disk since this
>> will waste CPU/IO resources and affect SSD lifetime sometimes.
>>
>> I'm not worrying about that trimfs will affect SSD's lifetime quite a lot,
>> since physical-logical address converting table resides in RAM while SSD is
>> working.
>> And that table won't be at a big scale. My point here is not affecting this
>> patch. Just a tip here.
> This depend on SSD firmware implementation, but for secure-trim, it really possibly affect SSD lifetime.
> 
>>> Firstly, we use try_lock to get fstrim dlm lock to identify if there is any
>> other node which is doing fstrim on the disk.
>>> If not, this node is the first one, this node should do fstrim operation on
>> the disk.
>>> If yes, this node is not the first one, this node should wait until the
>> first node is done for fstrim operation, then return the result from DLM
>> lock's value.
>>>
>>>> Can it just acquire the _trimfs_ lock as a blocking one directly here?
>>> We can not do a blocking lock directly, since we need to identify if there
>> is any other node has being do fstrim operation when this node start to do
>> fstrim.
>>
>> Thanks for your elaboration.
>>
>> Well how about the third node trying to trimming fs too?
>> It needs LVB from the second node.
>> But it seems that the second node can't provide a valid LVB.
>> So the third node will perform trimfs once more.
> No, the second node does not change DLM lock's value, but the DLM lock's value is still valid.
> The third node also refer to this DLM lock's value, then do the same logic like the second node.

Hi Gang,
I don't see any places where ocfs2_lock_res::ocfs2_lock_res_ops::set_lvb is set while flag LOCK_TYPE_USES_LVB is added.

Are you sure below code path can work well?
ocfs2_process_blocked_lock
   ocfs2_unblock_lock
       Reference to ::set_lvb since LOCK_TYPE_USES_LVB is set.

Thanks,
Changwei

> 
>>
>> IOW, three nodes are trying to trimming fs concurrently. Is your patch able
>> to handle such a scenario?
> Yes, the patch can handle this case.
> 
>>
>> Even the second lock request with QUEUE set just follows
>> ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit() will not get rid of concurrent trimfs.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +	if (ret < 0) {
>>>>> +		if (ret != -EAGAIN) {
>>>>> +			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>>> +			ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);
>>>>> +			goto out_unlock;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		mlog(ML_NOTICE, "Wait for trim on device (%s) to "
>>>>> +		     "finish, which is running from another node.\n",
>>>>> +		     osb->dev_str);
>>>>> +		ret = ocfs2_trim_fs_lock(osb, &info, 0);
>>>>> +		if (ret < 0) {
>>>>> +			mlog_errno(ret);
>>>>> +			ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);
>>>>
>>>> In ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(), you drop lock. But it is never granted.
>>>> Still need to drop lock resource?
>>> Yes, we need to init/uninit fstrim dlm lock resource for each time.
>>> Otherwise, trylock does not work, this is a little different from other dlm
>> lock usage in ocfs2.
>>
>> This point is OK for now, too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +			goto out_unlock;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +		if (info.tf_valid && info.tf_success &&
>>>>> +		    info.tf_start == start && info.tf_len == len &&
>>>>> +		    info.tf_minlen == minlen) {
>>>>> +			/* Avoid sending duplicated trim to a shared device */
>>>>> +			mlog(ML_NOTICE, "The same trim on device (%s) was "
>>>>> +			     "just done from node (%u), return.\n",
>>>>> +			     osb->dev_str, info.tf_nodenum);
>>>>> +			range->len = info.tf_trimlen;
>>>>> +			goto out_trimunlock;
>>>>> +		}
>>>>> +	}
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	info.tf_nodenum = osb->node_num;
>>>>> +	info.tf_start = start;
>>>>> +	info.tf_len = len;
>>>>> +	info.tf_minlen = minlen;
>>>>
>>>> If we faild during dong trimfs, I think we should not cache above info in
>>>> LVB.
>>> It is necessary, if the second node is waiting the first node, the first
>> node fails to do fstrim,
>>> the first node should update dlm lock's value, then the second node can get
>> the latest dlm lock value (rather than the last time DLM lock value),
>>> the second node will do the fstrim again, since the first node has failed.
>>
>> Yes, it makes scene.
>>>
>>>> BTW, it seems that this patch is on top of  'try lock' patches which you
>>>> previously sent out.
>>>> Are they related?
>>> try lock patch is related to non-block aio support for ocfs2.
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>> Gang
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Changwei
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>>     	/* Determine first and last group to examine based on start and len */
>>>>>     	first_group = ocfs2_which_cluster_group(main_bm_inode, start);
>>>>>     	if (first_group == osb->first_cluster_group_blkno)
>>>>> @@ -7463,6 +7500,13 @@ int ocfs2_trim_fs(struct super_block *sb, struct
>>>> fstrim_range *range)
>>>>>     			group += ocfs2_clusters_to_blocks(sb, osb->bitmap_cpg);
>>>>>     	}
>>>>>     	range->len = trimmed * sb->s_blocksize;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +	info.tf_trimlen = range->len;
>>>>> +	info.tf_success = (ret ? 0 : 1);
>>>>> +	pinfo = &info;
>>>>> +out_trimunlock:
>>>>> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_unlock(osb, pinfo);
>>>>> +	ocfs2_trim_fs_lock_res_uninit(osb);
>>>>>     out_unlock:
>>>>>     	ocfs2_inode_unlock(main_bm_inode, 0);
>>>>>     	brelse(main_bm_bh);
>>>>>
>>>
>