| Message ID | 20221229081252.452240-4-sarthakkukreti@chromium.org (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Introduce provisioning primitives for thinly provisioned storage | expand |
On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:12:48AM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. > > The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe > the default allocation mode as: > > ``` > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() > allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. > ... > subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed > not to fail because of lack of disk space. > ``` > > For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse > files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent > disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk > space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. > > The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() > causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates > allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) Why is it important to make this distinction? The outcome of fallocate is supposed to be that subsequent writes do not fail with ENOSPC. In my (fs developer) mind, REQ_OP_PROVISION simply an extra step to be taken after allocating file blocks. If you *don't* add this API flag and simply bake the REQ_OP_PROVISION call into mode 0 fallocate, then the new functionality can be added (or even backported) to existing kernels and customers can use it immediately. If you *do*, then you get to wait a few years for developers to add it to their codebases only after enough enterprise distros pick up a new kernel to make it worth their while. > for thinly provisioned filesystems/ > block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these > allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision > requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to > preserve existing behavior. How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate mode flag? --D > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> > --- > block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- > include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 > --- a/block/fops.c > +++ b/block/fops.c > @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ > (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ > - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > loff_t len) > @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); > > /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ > - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > - if (error) > - goto fail; > + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { > + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > + if (error) > + goto fail; > + } > > switch (mode) { > case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: > @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > break; > + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: > + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > + break; > default: > error = -EOPNOTSUPP; > } > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h > index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ > - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) > + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 > --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ > */ > #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 > > +/* > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate > + * blocks for the range/EOF. > + * > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. > + */ > +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 > + > #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */ > -- > 2.37.3 >
On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:39 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:12:48AM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > > allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. > > > > The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe > > the default allocation mode as: > > > > ``` > > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() > > allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. > > ... > > subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed > > not to fail because of lack of disk space. > > ``` > > > > For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse > > files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent > > disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk > > space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. > > > > The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() > > causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates > > allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) > > Why is it important to make this distinction? The outcome of fallocate > is supposed to be that subsequent writes do not fail with ENOSPC. In my > (fs developer) mind, REQ_OP_PROVISION simply an extra step to be taken > after allocating file blocks. > Some use cases still benefit from keeping the default mode - eg. virtual machines running on massive storage pools that don't expect to hit the storage limit anytime soon (like most cloud storage providers). Essentially, if the 'no ENOSPC' guarantee is maintained via other means, then REQ_OP_PROVISION adds latency that isn't needed (and cloud storage providers don't need to set aside that extra space that may or may not be used). > If you *don't* add this API flag and simply bake the REQ_OP_PROVISION > call into mode 0 fallocate, then the new functionality can be added (or > even backported) to existing kernels and customers can use it > immediately. If you *do*, then you get to wait a few years for > developers to add it to their codebases only after enough enterprise > distros pick up a new kernel to make it worth their while. > > > for thinly provisioned filesystems/ > > block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these > > allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision > > requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to > > preserve existing behavior. > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > mode flag? > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and the fragmentation at the allocation layers. I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact time distribution in the cover letter https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation and how the block device is layered can make this worse... > --D > > > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> > > --- > > block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- > > include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > > index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 > > --- a/block/fops.c > > +++ b/block/fops.c > > @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > > > #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ > > (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ > > - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) > > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > loff_t len) > > @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); > > > > /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ > > - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > - if (error) > > - goto fail; > > + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { > > + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > + if (error) > > + goto fail; > > + } > > > > switch (mode) { > > case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: > > @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > break; > > + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: > > + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > + break; > > default: > > error = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > } > > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h > > index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h > > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h > > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ > > - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) > > + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ > > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ > > */ > > #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 > > > > +/* > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate > > + * blocks for the range/EOF. > > + * > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. > > + */ > > +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 > > + > > #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */ > > -- > > 2.37.3 > >
(Resend; the text flow made the last reply unreadable) On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:39 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:12:48AM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > > allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. > > > > The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe > > the default allocation mode as: > > > > ``` > > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() > > allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. > > ... > > subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed > > not to fail because of lack of disk space. > > ``` > > > > For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse > > files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent > > disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk > > space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. > > > > The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() > > causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates > > allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) > > Why is it important to make this distinction? The outcome of fallocate > is supposed to be that subsequent writes do not fail with ENOSPC. In my > (fs developer) mind, REQ_OP_PROVISION simply an extra step to be taken > after allocating file blocks. > Some use cases still benefit from keeping the default mode - eg. virtual machines running on massive storage pools that don't expect to hit the storage limit anytime soon (like most cloud storage providers). Essentially, if the 'no ENOSPC' guarantee is maintained via other means, then REQ_OP_PROVISION adds latency that isn't needed (and cloud storage providers don't need to set aside that extra space that may or may not be used). > If you *don't* add this API flag and simply bake the REQ_OP_PROVISION > call into mode 0 fallocate, then the new functionality can be added (or > even backported) to existing kernels and customers can use it > immediately. If you *do*, then you get to wait a few years for > developers to add it to their codebases only after enough enterprise > distros pick up a new kernel to make it worth their while. > > > for thinly provisioned filesystems/ > > block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these > > allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision > > requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to > > preserve existing behavior. > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > mode flag? > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and the fragmentation at the allocation layers. I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact time distribution in the cover letter https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation and how the block device is layered can make this worse... > --D > > > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> > > --- > > block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- > > include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ > > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > > index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 > > --- a/block/fops.c > > +++ b/block/fops.c > > @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > > > #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ > > (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ > > - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) > > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > loff_t len) > > @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); > > > > /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ > > - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > - if (error) > > - goto fail; > > + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { > > + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > + if (error) > > + goto fail; > > + } > > > > switch (mode) { > > case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: > > @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > break; > > + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: > > + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > + break; > > default: > > error = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > } > > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h > > index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 > > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h > > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h > > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ > > - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) > > + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ > > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ > > */ > > #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 > > > > +/* > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate > > + * blocks for the range/EOF. > > + * > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. > > + */ > > +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 > > + > > #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */ > > -- > > 2.37.3 > >
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > (Resend; the text flow made the last reply unreadable) > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:39 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:12:48AM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > > > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > > > allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. > > > > > > The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe > > > the default allocation mode as: > > > > > > ``` > > > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() > > > allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. > > > ... > > > subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed > > > not to fail because of lack of disk space. > > > ``` > > > > > > For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse > > > files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent > > > disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk > > > space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. > > > > > > The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() > > > causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates > > > allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) > > > > Why is it important to make this distinction? The outcome of fallocate > > is supposed to be that subsequent writes do not fail with ENOSPC. In my > > (fs developer) mind, REQ_OP_PROVISION simply an extra step to be taken > > after allocating file blocks. > > > Some use cases still benefit from keeping the default mode - eg. > virtual machines running on massive storage pools that don't expect to > hit the storage limit anytime soon (like most cloud storage > providers). Essentially, if the 'no ENOSPC' guarantee is maintained > via other means, then REQ_OP_PROVISION adds latency that isn't needed > (and cloud storage providers don't need to set aside that extra space > that may or may not be used). > What's the granularity that needs to be managed at? Do you really need an fallocate command for this, or would one of the filesystem level features you've already implemented for ext4 suffice? I mostly agree with Darrick in that FALLOC_FL_PROVISION stills feels a bit wonky to me. I can see that there might be some legitimate use cases for it, but I'm not convinced that it won't just end up being confusing to many users. At the same time, I think the approach of unconditional provision on falloc could eventually lead to complaints associated with the performance impact or similar sorts of confusion. For example, should an falloc of an already allocated range in the fs send a provision or not? Should filesystems that don't otherwise support UNSHARE_RANGE need to support it in order to support an unshare request to COW'd blocks on an underlying block device? I wonder if the smart thing to do here is separate out the question of a new fallocate interface from the mechanism entirely. For example, implement REQ_OP_PROVISION as you've already done, enable block layer mode = 0 fallocate support (i.e. without FL_PROVISION, so whether a request propagates from a loop device will be up to the backing fs), implement the various fs features to support REQ_OP_PROVISION (i.e., mount option, file attr, etc.), then tack on FL_FALLOC + ext4 support at the end as an RFC/prototype. Even if we ultimately ended up with FL_PROVISION support, it might actually make some sense to kick that can down the road a bit regardless to give fs' a chance to implement basic REQ_OP_PROVISION support, get a better understanding of how it works in practice, and then perhaps make more informed decisions on things like sane defaults and/or how best to expose it via fallocate. Thoughts? Brian > > If you *don't* add this API flag and simply bake the REQ_OP_PROVISION > > call into mode 0 fallocate, then the new functionality can be added (or > > even backported) to existing kernels and customers can use it > > immediately. If you *do*, then you get to wait a few years for > > developers to add it to their codebases only after enough enterprise > > distros pick up a new kernel to make it worth their while. > > > > > for thinly provisioned filesystems/ > > > block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these > > > allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision > > > requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to > > > preserve existing behavior. > > > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > > mode flag? > > > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and > the fragmentation at the allocation layers. > > I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: > A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' > B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. > C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a > sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). > > I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) > remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from > 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact > time distribution in the cover letter > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) > > +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation > and how the block device is layered can make this worse... > > > --D > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> > > > --- > > > block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > > include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- > > > include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > > > index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 > > > --- a/block/fops.c > > > +++ b/block/fops.c > > > @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > > > > > #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ > > > (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ > > > - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) > > > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > loff_t len) > > > @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); > > > > > > /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ > > > - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > - if (error) > > > - goto fail; > > > + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { > > > + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > + if (error) > > > + goto fail; > > > + } > > > > > > switch (mode) { > > > case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: > > > @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > break; > > > + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: > > > + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > + break; > > > default: > > > error = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > } > > > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 > > > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h > > > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { > > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ > > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ > > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ > > > - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) > > > + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ > > > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ > > > */ > > > #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 > > > > > > +/* > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate > > > + * blocks for the range/EOF. > > > + * > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. > > > + */ > > > +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 > > > + > > > #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */ > > > -- > > > 2.37.3 > > > >
On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > > mode flag? > > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and > the fragmentation at the allocation layers. > > I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: > A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' > B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. > C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a > sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). > > I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) > remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from > 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact > time distribution in the cover letter > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) > > +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation > and how the block device is layered can make this worse... If userspace uses fallocate(2) there are generally two reasons. Either they **really** don't want to get the NOSPC, in which case noprovision will not give them what they want unless we modify their source code to add this new FALLOC_FL_PROVISION flag --- which may not be possible if it is provided in a binary-only format (for example, proprietary databases shipped by companies beginning with the letters 'I' or 'O'). Or, they really care about avoiding fragmentation by giving a hint to the file system that layout is important, and so **please** allocate the space right away so that it is more likely that the space will be laid out in a contiguous fashion. Of course, the moment you use thin-provisioning this goes out the window, since even if the space is contiguous on the dm-thin layer, on the underlying storage layer it is likely that things will be fragmented to a fare-thee-well, and either (a) you have a vast amount of flash to try to mitigate the performance hit of using thin-provisioning (example, hardware thin-provisioning such as EMC storage arrays), or (b) you really don't care about performance since space savings is what you're going for. So.... because of the issue of changing the semantics of what fallocate(2) will guarantee, unless programs are forced to change their code to use this new FALLOC flag, I really am not very fond of it. I suspect that using a mount option (which should default to "provision"; if you want to break user API expectations, it should require a mount option for the system administrator to explicitly OK such a change), is OK. As far as the per-file mode --- I'm not convinced it's really necessary. In general if you are using thin-provisioning file systems tend to be used explicitly for one purpose, so adding the complexity of doing it on a per-file basis is probably not really needed. That being said, your existing prototype requires searching for the extended attribute on every single file allocation, which is not a great idea. On a system with SELinux enabled, every file will have an xattr block, and requiring that it be searched on every file allocation would be unfortunate. It would be better to check for the xattr when the file is opened, and then setting a flag in the struct file. However, it might be better to see if it there is a real demand for such a feature before adding it. - Ted
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:46:06AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > (Resend; the text flow made the last reply unreadable) > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:39 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:12:48AM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > > > > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > > > > allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. > > > > > > > > The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe > > > > the default allocation mode as: > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() > > > > allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. > > > > ... > > > > subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed > > > > not to fail because of lack of disk space. > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse > > > > files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent > > > > disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk > > > > space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. > > > > > > > > The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() > > > > causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates > > > > allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) > > > > > > Why is it important to make this distinction? The outcome of fallocate > > > is supposed to be that subsequent writes do not fail with ENOSPC. In my > > > (fs developer) mind, REQ_OP_PROVISION simply an extra step to be taken > > > after allocating file blocks. > > > > > Some use cases still benefit from keeping the default mode - eg. > > virtual machines running on massive storage pools that don't expect to > > hit the storage limit anytime soon (like most cloud storage > > providers). Essentially, if the 'no ENOSPC' guarantee is maintained > > via other means, then REQ_OP_PROVISION adds latency that isn't needed > > (and cloud storage providers don't need to set aside that extra space > > that may or may not be used). > > > > What's the granularity that needs to be managed at? Do you really need > an fallocate command for this, or would one of the filesystem level > features you've already implemented for ext4 suffice? > > I mostly agree with Darrick in that FALLOC_FL_PROVISION stills feels a > bit wonky to me. I can see that there might be some legitimate use cases > for it, but I'm not convinced that it won't just end up being confusing > to many users. At the same time, I think the approach of unconditional > provision on falloc could eventually lead to complaints associated with > the performance impact or similar sorts of confusion. For example, > should an falloc of an already allocated range in the fs send a > provision or not? For a user-initiated fallocate call, I think that's reasonable. My first thought is to make the XFS allocator issue REQ_OP_PROVISION on every allocation if the device supports it. The fs has decided that it's going to allocate and presumably write to some space, so the underlying storage really ought to have some space ready. But then it occurred to me -- what if the IO fails with ENOSPC? Do we keep going and hope for the best? Or maybe we should undo the allocation? That could be tricky since we'd have to add a transaction to undo the allocation, commit that, and then throw an error to the upper layers. Should the allocator instead find the space it wants and issue the provisioning IO with the AGF locked, and try again somewhere else if the IO returns ENOSPC? If the space management IO takes forever, we've pinned the that AG for the duration, which is one of the not very nice aspects of the XFS FITRIM implementation on crappy SSDs. For a directio write, it's simple enough to throw that error back to userspace. I think the same applies to buffered writeback -- we'll cancel the writeback and set AS_ENOSPC on the mapping. But then, what about *metadata* allocation? If those fail because the provisioning encounters ENOSPC, we'll shut down the filesystem, which isn't nice. For XFS I guess we could reuse the existing metadata IO error config knobs to make it retry for some amount of time until (hopefully) the admin buys more storage. Let's go with the simplest implementation (issue it with the free space locked), and iterate from there. > Should filesystems that don't otherwise support UNSHARE_RANGE need to > support it in order to support an unshare request to COW'd blocks on > an underlying block device? Hmm. Currently, fallocate'ing part of a file that's already mapped to shared blocks is a nop. That's technically an omission in the implementation, since a subsequent write can fail during COW setup due to insufficient space. My memory about funshare is a bit murky since it's been years now. As I remember it, originally, I had allocate mode also calling unshare, but Dave or someone pointed out that unsharing generates a flood of dirty pagecache, and it would be a bit surprising that fallocate suddenly takes a long time to run. There also wasn't much precedent for fallocate to unshare blocks, since btrfs doesn't do that: # filefrag -v /mnt/[ab] Filesystem type is: 9123683e File size of /mnt/a is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof /mnt/a: 1 extent found File size of /mnt/b is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof /mnt/b: 1 extent found # xfs_io -c 'falloc 512k 36k' /mnt/b # filefrag -v /mnt/[ab] Filesystem type is: 9123683e File size of /mnt/a is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof /mnt/a: 1 extent found File size of /mnt/b is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof /mnt/b: 1 extent found I took funshare out of the patchset entirely (minimum viable product, yadda yadda) and a few months later, I think hch or someone asked for a knob for userspace to get a file back to pure overwrite mode. That's where it's been ever since. So to answer your question: fallocate mode 0 and REQ_OP_PROVISION probably ought to be allocating the holes and unsharing existing shared mappings. However, we could also wriggle out of that by <cough> claiming that fallocate has been consistent across filesystems in leaving that wart for userspace to trip over. :/ > I wonder if the smart thing to do here is separate out the question of a > new fallocate interface from the mechanism entirely. For example, > implement REQ_OP_PROVISION as you've already done, enable block layer > mode = 0 fallocate support (i.e. without FL_PROVISION, so whether a > request propagates from a loop device will be up to the backing fs), > implement the various fs features to support REQ_OP_PROVISION (i.e., > mount option, file attr, etc.), then tack on FL_FALLOC + ext4 support at > the end as an RFC/prototype. Yeah. > Even if we ultimately ended up with FL_PROVISION support, it might > actually make some sense to kick that can down the road a bit regardless > to give fs' a chance to implement basic REQ_OP_PROVISION support, get a > better understanding of how it works in practice, and then perhaps make > more informed decisions on things like sane defaults and/or how best to > expose it via fallocate. Thoughts? Agree. :) --D > > Brian > > > > If you *don't* add this API flag and simply bake the REQ_OP_PROVISION > > > call into mode 0 fallocate, then the new functionality can be added (or > > > even backported) to existing kernels and customers can use it > > > immediately. If you *do*, then you get to wait a few years for > > > developers to add it to their codebases only after enough enterprise > > > distros pick up a new kernel to make it worth their while. > > > > > > > for thinly provisioned filesystems/ > > > > block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these > > > > allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision > > > > requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to > > > > preserve existing behavior. > > > > > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > > > mode flag? > > > > > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and > > the fragmentation at the allocation layers. > > > > I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: > > A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' > > B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. > > C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a > > sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). > > > > I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) > > remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from > > 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact > > time distribution in the cover letter > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) > > > > +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation > > and how the block device is layered can make this worse... > > > > > --D > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > > > include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- > > > > include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > > > > index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 > > > > --- a/block/fops.c > > > > +++ b/block/fops.c > > > > @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > > > > > > > #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ > > > > (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ > > > > - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) > > > > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ > > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > > > static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > loff_t len) > > > > @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); > > > > > > > > /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ > > > > - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > > - if (error) > > > > - goto fail; > > > > + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { > > > > + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > > + if (error) > > > > + goto fail; > > > > + } > > > > > > > > switch (mode) { > > > > case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: > > > > @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > break; > > > > + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: > > > > + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + break; > > > > default: > > > > error = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > } > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { > > > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ > > > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ > > > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ > > > > - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) > > > > + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ > > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > > > /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ > > > > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ > > > > */ > > > > #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate > > > > + * blocks for the range/EOF. > > > > + * > > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. > > > > + */ > > > > +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 > > > > + > > > > #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */ > > > > -- > > > > 2.37.3 > > > > > > >
On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:35:36AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:46:06AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > (Resend; the text flow made the last reply unreadable) > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:39 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:12:48AM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > > > > > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > > > > > allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. > > > > > > > > > > The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe > > > > > the default allocation mode as: > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() > > > > > allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. > > > > > ... > > > > > subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed > > > > > not to fail because of lack of disk space. > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse > > > > > files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent > > > > > disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk > > > > > space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. > > > > > > > > > > The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() > > > > > causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates > > > > > allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) > > > > > > > > Why is it important to make this distinction? The outcome of fallocate > > > > is supposed to be that subsequent writes do not fail with ENOSPC. In my > > > > (fs developer) mind, REQ_OP_PROVISION simply an extra step to be taken > > > > after allocating file blocks. > > > > > > > Some use cases still benefit from keeping the default mode - eg. > > > virtual machines running on massive storage pools that don't expect to > > > hit the storage limit anytime soon (like most cloud storage > > > providers). Essentially, if the 'no ENOSPC' guarantee is maintained > > > via other means, then REQ_OP_PROVISION adds latency that isn't needed > > > (and cloud storage providers don't need to set aside that extra space > > > that may or may not be used). > > > > > > > What's the granularity that needs to be managed at? Do you really need > > an fallocate command for this, or would one of the filesystem level > > features you've already implemented for ext4 suffice? > > > > I mostly agree with Darrick in that FALLOC_FL_PROVISION stills feels a > > bit wonky to me. I can see that there might be some legitimate use cases > > for it, but I'm not convinced that it won't just end up being confusing > > to many users. At the same time, I think the approach of unconditional > > provision on falloc could eventually lead to complaints associated with > > the performance impact or similar sorts of confusion. For example, > > should an falloc of an already allocated range in the fs send a > > provision or not? > > For a user-initiated fallocate call, I think that's reasonable. > I think so as well, but that doesn't appear to be what the proposed implementation for ext4 does. I'm not intimately familiar with ext4, but it looks to me like it only provisions on initial allocation..? > My first thought is to make the XFS allocator issue REQ_OP_PROVISION on > every allocation if the device supports it. The fs has decided that > it's going to allocate and presumably write to some space, so the > underlying storage really ought to have some space ready. > That makes sense for a purely thin provisioned device, but runs into issues with block layer snapshots (re: my comments on the provision mount option patch). I wonder if it makes more sense to provision at some point before submitting writes or dirtying pagecache. IIRC we had prototyped something in XFS a while back that performed an analogous dm-thin fallocate at the time an extent is mapped for writes. I'm not sure what the performance impact of that would be or if there's a nice way to optimize away the obvious side effect of spurious requests. > But then it occurred to me -- what if the IO fails with ENOSPC? Do we > keep going and hope for the best? Or maybe we should undo the > allocation? That could be tricky since we'd have to add a transaction > to undo the allocation, commit that, and then throw an error to the > upper layers. > Yeah, that's a good question. IMO we should be able to use something like this to improve the failure handling for fs' over thinly provisioned storage with dangerously low free space. There's not much point in just submitting writes in response to failed provisions in that case, but perhaps there is some more incremental use case or benefit I'm not aware of..? The flipside of more reliably graceful error handling is there may be more to the minimal solution than just firing off provisions on initial allocation, unless you wanted to just rule out snapshots I guess. That said, I think there's still potential opportunity for improvement. For example, if a prototype did something like the following: - Provision the log at opportunistic points (i.e., on mount, first transaction to a covered log, etc.) to guarantee log writes won't fail. - Provision extents mapped for data writes before the write is allowed to proceed. - Do something similar for metadata in AIL processing or some such, where each item must be provisioned before written back. - Shutdown the fs in response to any provision failure. ... obviously that comes with caveats, possibly bad performance, etc., but it would be interesting to see if that is sufficient to catch most scenarios where a write would otherwise get to an out of space volume causing it to become inactive. If that could be made to work well enough, perhaps the fs shutdown step could be replaced with some kind of in-core pause/freeze like mode where the admin has the opportunity to either add more storage and continue or explicitly shutdown to save the volume. OTOH if that just doesn't work out, perhaps this can be combined with other schemes to reliably prevent inactivation, such as the reservation mechanism the dm guys had prototyped in the past. Of course that potentially complicates the interface between the fs and dm-layer. > Should the allocator instead find the space it wants and issue the > provisioning IO with the AGF locked, and try again somewhere else if the > IO returns ENOSPC? If the space management IO takes forever, we've > pinned the that AG for the duration, which is one of the not very nice > aspects of the XFS FITRIM implementation on crappy SSDs. > > For a directio write, it's simple enough to throw that error back to > userspace. I think the same applies to buffered writeback -- we'll > cancel the writeback and set AS_ENOSPC on the mapping. > > But then, what about *metadata* allocation? If those fail because the > provisioning encounters ENOSPC, we'll shut down the filesystem, which > isn't nice. For XFS I guess we could reuse the existing metadata IO > error config knobs to make it retry for some amount of time until > (hopefully) the admin buys more storage. > > Let's go with the simplest implementation (issue it with the free space > locked), and iterate from there. > > > Should filesystems that don't otherwise support UNSHARE_RANGE need to > > support it in order to support an unshare request to COW'd blocks on > > an underlying block device? > > Hmm. Currently, fallocate'ing part of a file that's already mapped to > shared blocks is a nop. That's technically an omission in the > implementation, since a subsequent write can fail during COW setup due > to insufficient space. My memory about funshare is a bit murky since > it's been years now. > > As I remember it, originally, I had allocate mode also calling unshare, > but Dave or someone pointed out that unsharing generates a flood of > dirty pagecache, and it would be a bit surprising that fallocate > suddenly takes a long time to run. There also wasn't much precedent for > fallocate to unshare blocks, since btrfs doesn't do that: > > # filefrag -v /mnt/[ab] > Filesystem type is: 9123683e > File size of /mnt/a is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) > ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: > 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof > /mnt/a: 1 extent found > File size of /mnt/b is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) > ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: > 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof > /mnt/b: 1 extent found > > # xfs_io -c 'falloc 512k 36k' /mnt/b > > # filefrag -v /mnt/[ab] > Filesystem type is: 9123683e > File size of /mnt/a is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) > ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: > 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof > /mnt/a: 1 extent found > File size of /mnt/b is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) > ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: > 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof > /mnt/b: 1 extent found > > I took funshare out of the patchset entirely (minimum viable product, > yadda yadda) and a few months later, I think hch or someone asked for a > knob for userspace to get a file back to pure overwrite mode. That's > where it's been ever since. > > So to answer your question: fallocate mode 0 and REQ_OP_PROVISION > probably ought to be allocating the holes and unsharing existing shared > mappings. However, we could also wriggle out of that by <cough> > claiming that fallocate has been consistent across filesystems in > leaving that wart for userspace to trip over. :/ > Thanks. That seems reasonable to me, but again isn't what the patches appear to implement. ;P I guess from the standpoint of an I/O command, it probably makes more sense to unshare by default. Why else would one send the command otherwise? The falloc api is what it is at this point, so the bdev folks could always decide if/how to implement a non-unsharing variant if there happens to be some reason to do that. Brian > > I wonder if the smart thing to do here is separate out the question of a > > new fallocate interface from the mechanism entirely. For example, > > implement REQ_OP_PROVISION as you've already done, enable block layer > > mode = 0 fallocate support (i.e. without FL_PROVISION, so whether a > > request propagates from a loop device will be up to the backing fs), > > implement the various fs features to support REQ_OP_PROVISION (i.e., > > mount option, file attr, etc.), then tack on FL_FALLOC + ext4 support at > > the end as an RFC/prototype. > > Yeah. > > > Even if we ultimately ended up with FL_PROVISION support, it might > > actually make some sense to kick that can down the road a bit regardless > > to give fs' a chance to implement basic REQ_OP_PROVISION support, get a > > better understanding of how it works in practice, and then perhaps make > > more informed decisions on things like sane defaults and/or how best to > > expose it via fallocate. Thoughts? > > Agree. :) > > --D > > > > > Brian > > > > > > If you *don't* add this API flag and simply bake the REQ_OP_PROVISION > > > > call into mode 0 fallocate, then the new functionality can be added (or > > > > even backported) to existing kernels and customers can use it > > > > immediately. If you *do*, then you get to wait a few years for > > > > developers to add it to their codebases only after enough enterprise > > > > distros pick up a new kernel to make it worth their while. > > > > > > > > > for thinly provisioned filesystems/ > > > > > block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these > > > > > allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision > > > > > requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to > > > > > preserve existing behavior. > > > > > > > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > > > > mode flag? > > > > > > > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and > > > the fragmentation at the allocation layers. > > > > > > I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: > > > A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' > > > B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. > > > C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a > > > sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). > > > > > > I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) > > > remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from > > > 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact > > > time distribution in the cover letter > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) > > > > > > +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation > > > and how the block device is layered can make this worse... > > > > > > > --D > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > > > > include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- > > > > > include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > > > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > > > > > index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 > > > > > --- a/block/fops.c > > > > > +++ b/block/fops.c > > > > > @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > > > > > > > > > #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ > > > > > (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ > > > > > - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) > > > > > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ > > > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > > > > > static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > > loff_t len) > > > > > @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); > > > > > > > > > > /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ > > > > > - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > > > - if (error) > > > > > - goto fail; > > > > > + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { > > > > > + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > > > + if (error) > > > > > + goto fail; > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > switch (mode) { > > > > > case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: > > > > > @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > > error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > > len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > break; > > > > > + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: > > > > > + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > > + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > + break; > > > > > default: > > > > > error = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > } > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > > index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 > > > > > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { > > > > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ > > > > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ > > > > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ > > > > > - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) > > > > > + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ > > > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > > > > > /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ > > > > > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > > index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 > > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > > @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ > > > > > */ > > > > > #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate > > > > > + * blocks for the range/EOF. > > > > > + * > > > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. > > > > > + */ > > > > > +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 > > > > > + > > > > > #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */ > > > > > -- > > > > > 2.37.3 > > > > > > > > > > >
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 6:45 AM Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > (Resend; the text flow made the last reply unreadable) > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:39 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:12:48AM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > > > > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > > > > allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. > > > > > > > > The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe > > > > the default allocation mode as: > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() > > > > allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. > > > > ... > > > > subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed > > > > not to fail because of lack of disk space. > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse > > > > files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent > > > > disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk > > > > space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. > > > > > > > > The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() > > > > causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates > > > > allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) > > > > > > Why is it important to make this distinction? The outcome of fallocate > > > is supposed to be that subsequent writes do not fail with ENOSPC. In my > > > (fs developer) mind, REQ_OP_PROVISION simply an extra step to be taken > > > after allocating file blocks. > > > > > Some use cases still benefit from keeping the default mode - eg. > > virtual machines running on massive storage pools that don't expect to > > hit the storage limit anytime soon (like most cloud storage > > providers). Essentially, if the 'no ENOSPC' guarantee is maintained > > via other means, then REQ_OP_PROVISION adds latency that isn't needed > > (and cloud storage providers don't need to set aside that extra space > > that may or may not be used). > > > > What's the granularity that needs to be managed at? Do you really need > an fallocate command for this, or would one of the filesystem level > features you've already implemented for ext4 suffice? > I think I (belatedly) see the point now; the other mechanisms provide enough flexibility that make a separate FALLOC_FL_PROVISION redundant and confusing. I'll post the next series without the falloc() flag. > I mostly agree with Darrick in that FALLOC_FL_PROVISION stills feels a > bit wonky to me. I can see that there might be some legitimate use cases > for it, but I'm not convinced that it won't just end up being confusing > to many users. At the same time, I think the approach of unconditional > provision on falloc could eventually lead to complaints associated with > the performance impact or similar sorts of confusion. For example, > should an falloc of an already allocated range in the fs send a > provision or not? > It boils down to whether a) the underlying device supports provisioning and b) whether the device is a snapshot. If either is true, then we'd need to pass down provision requests down to the last layers of the stack. Filesystems might be able to amortize some of the performance drop if they maintain a bit that tracks whether the extent has been provisioned/written to; for such extents, we'd only send a provision request iff the underlying device is a snapshot device. Or we could make this a policy that's configurable by a mount option (added details below). In the current patch series, I went through the simpler route of just calling REQ_OP_PROVISION on the first fallocate() call. But as everyone pointed out on the thread, that doesn't work out as well for previously allocated ranges.. > [Reflowed] Should filesystems that don't otherwise support > UNSHARE_RANGE need to support it in order to support an unshare request > to COW'd blocks on an underlying block device? > I think it would make sense to keep the UNSHARE_RANGE handling intact and delegate the actual provisioning to the filesystem layer. Even if the filesystem doesn't support unsharing, we could add a separate mount mode option that will result in the filesystem sending REQ_OP_PROVISION to the entire file range if fallocate mode==0 is called. > I wonder if the smart thing to do here is separate out the question of a > new fallocate interface from the mechanism entirely. For example, > implement REQ_OP_PROVISION as you've already done, enable block layer > mode = 0 fallocate support (i.e. without FL_PROVISION, so whether a > request propagates from a loop device will be up to the backing fs), > implement the various fs features to support REQ_OP_PROVISION (i.e., > mount option, file attr, etc.), then tack on FL_FALLOC + ext4 support at > the end as an RFC/prototype. > > Even if we ultimately ended up with FL_PROVISION support, it might > actually make some sense to kick that can down the road a bit regardless > to give fs' a chance to implement basic REQ_OP_PROVISION support, get a > better understanding of how it works in practice, and then perhaps make > more informed decisions on things like sane defaults and/or how best to > expose it via fallocate. Thoughts? > That's fair (and thanks for the thorough feedback!), I'll split the series and send out the REQ_OP_PROVISION parts shortly. As you, Darrick and Ted have pointed out, the filesystem patches need a bit more work. Best Sarthak > Brian > > > > If you *don't* add this API flag and simply bake the REQ_OP_PROVISION > > > call into mode 0 fallocate, then the new functionality can be added (or > > > even backported) to existing kernels and customers can use it > > > immediately. If you *do*, then you get to wait a few years for > > > developers to add it to their codebases only after enough enterprise > > > distros pick up a new kernel to make it worth their while. > > > > > > > for thinly provisioned filesystems/ > > > > block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these > > > > allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision > > > > requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to > > > > preserve existing behavior. > > > > > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > > > mode flag? > > > > > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and > > the fragmentation at the allocation layers. > > > > I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: > > A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' > > B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. > > C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a > > sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). > > > > I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) > > remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from > > 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact > > time distribution in the cover letter > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) > > > > +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation > > and how the block device is layered can make this worse... > > > > > --D > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> > > > > --- > > > > block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > > > include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- > > > > include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > > > > index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 > > > > --- a/block/fops.c > > > > +++ b/block/fops.c > > > > @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > > > > > > > #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ > > > > (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ > > > > - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) > > > > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ > > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > > > static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > loff_t len) > > > > @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); > > > > > > > > /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ > > > > - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > > - if (error) > > > > - goto fail; > > > > + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { > > > > + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > > + if (error) > > > > + goto fail; > > > > + } > > > > > > > > switch (mode) { > > > > case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: > > > > @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > break; > > > > + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: > > > > + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > + break; > > > > default: > > > > error = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > } > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 > > > > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { > > > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ > > > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ > > > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ > > > > - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) > > > > + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ > > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > > > /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ > > > > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ > > > > */ > > > > #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate > > > > + * blocks for the range/EOF. > > > > + * > > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. > > > > + */ > > > > +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 > > > > + > > > > #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */ > > > > -- > > > > 2.37.3 > > > > > > >
On Thu, Jan 5, 2023 at 7:49 AM Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > > > mode flag? > > > > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and > > the fragmentation at the allocation layers. > > > > I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: > > A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' > > B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. > > C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a > > sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). > > > > I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) > > remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from > > 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact > > time distribution in the cover letter > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) > > > > +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation > > and how the block device is layered can make this worse... > > If userspace uses fallocate(2) there are generally two reasons. > Either they **really** don't want to get the NOSPC, in which case > noprovision will not give them what they want unless we modify their > source code to add this new FALLOC_FL_PROVISION flag --- which may not > be possible if it is provided in a binary-only format (for example, > proprietary databases shipped by companies beginning with the letters > 'I' or 'O'). > > Or, they really care about avoiding fragmentation by giving a hint to > the file system that layout is important, and so **please** allocate > the space right away so that it is more likely that the space will be > laid out in a contiguous fashion. Of course, the moment you use > thin-provisioning this goes out the window, since even if the space is > contiguous on the dm-thin layer, on the underlying storage layer it is > likely that things will be fragmented to a fare-thee-well, and either > (a) you have a vast amount of flash to try to mitigate the performance > hit of using thin-provisioning (example, hardware thin-provisioning > such as EMC storage arrays), or (b) you really don't care about > performance since space savings is what you're going for. > > So.... because of the issue of changing the semantics of what > fallocate(2) will guarantee, unless programs are forced to change > their code to use this new FALLOC flag, I really am not very fond of > it. > > I suspect that using a mount option (which should default to > "provision"; if you want to break user API expectations, it should > require a mount option for the system administrator to explicitly OK > such a change), is OK. > Understood. I dropped the FALLOC flag from the series in v3, instead we now rely on the filesystem's mount/policy. > As far as the per-file mode --- I'm not convinced it's really > necessary. In general if you are using thin-provisioning file systems > tend to be used explicitly for one purpose, so adding the complexity > of doing it on a per-file basis is probably not really needed. That > being said, your existing prototype requires searching for the > extended attribute on every single file allocation, which is not a > great idea. On a system with SELinux enabled, every file will have an > xattr block, and requiring that it be searched on every file > allocation would be unfortunate. It would be better to check for the > xattr when the file is opened, and then setting a flag in the struct > file. However, it might be better to see if it there is a real demand > for such a feature before adding it. > Thanks for the feedback! On ChromeOS, we still have filesystems shared between applications, partly due to inertia of adoption. So, we have a few cases of needing to share the filesystem but with differing provisioning policy. One more idea that I've been exploring in this space and uses the above file-based mechanism is to use a 'provisioning disabled' fallocated file to make the apparent free space in the thinly provisioned filesystem match the space available in the thinpool. In theory, this prevents userspace applications from writing much more than what's available on the thinpool. In practice, it depends on the responsiveness of the service that monitors and resizes this 'storage balloon'. Best Sarthak > - Ted
On Mon, Jan 9, 2023 at 7:06 AM Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 11:35:36AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 05, 2023 at 09:46:06AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 01:22:06PM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > > (Resend; the text flow made the last reply unreadable) > > > > > > > > On Wed, Jan 4, 2023 at 8:39 AM Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022 at 12:12:48AM -0800, Sarthak Kukreti wrote: > > > > > > FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that > > > > > > sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to > > > > > > allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. > > > > > > > > > > > > The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe > > > > > > the default allocation mode as: > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() > > > > > > allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. > > > > > > ... > > > > > > subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed > > > > > > not to fail because of lack of disk space. > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse > > > > > > files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent > > > > > > disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk > > > > > > space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. > > > > > > > > > > > > The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() > > > > > > causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates > > > > > > allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) > > > > > > > > > > Why is it important to make this distinction? The outcome of fallocate > > > > > is supposed to be that subsequent writes do not fail with ENOSPC. In my > > > > > (fs developer) mind, REQ_OP_PROVISION simply an extra step to be taken > > > > > after allocating file blocks. > > > > > > > > > Some use cases still benefit from keeping the default mode - eg. > > > > virtual machines running on massive storage pools that don't expect to > > > > hit the storage limit anytime soon (like most cloud storage > > > > providers). Essentially, if the 'no ENOSPC' guarantee is maintained > > > > via other means, then REQ_OP_PROVISION adds latency that isn't needed > > > > (and cloud storage providers don't need to set aside that extra space > > > > that may or may not be used). > > > > > > > > > > What's the granularity that needs to be managed at? Do you really need > > > an fallocate command for this, or would one of the filesystem level > > > features you've already implemented for ext4 suffice? > > > > > > I mostly agree with Darrick in that FALLOC_FL_PROVISION stills feels a > > > bit wonky to me. I can see that there might be some legitimate use cases > > > for it, but I'm not convinced that it won't just end up being confusing > > > to many users. At the same time, I think the approach of unconditional > > > provision on falloc could eventually lead to complaints associated with > > > the performance impact or similar sorts of confusion. For example, > > > should an falloc of an already allocated range in the fs send a > > > provision or not? > > > > For a user-initiated fallocate call, I think that's reasonable. > > > > I think so as well, but that doesn't appear to be what the proposed > implementation for ext4 does. I'm not intimately familiar with ext4, but > it looks to me like it only provisions on initial allocation..? > That is correct. I think there are two parts/policies to it: 1) provision on first allocation: assuming that the filesystem is never used on top of a block-level snapshot device, it might be prudent to limit provision requests to just the first allocation. 2) always provision: for filesystems that are set up on top of a snapshot device. Would it make sense to split these behaviors out into mount-based policies (provision, noprovision, provision_on_alloc)? That way, we can amortize the cost of provisioning in the non-block snapshot world, but at the same time ensure correctness. Best Sarthak > > My first thought is to make the XFS allocator issue REQ_OP_PROVISION on > > every allocation if the device supports it. The fs has decided that > > it's going to allocate and presumably write to some space, so the > > underlying storage really ought to have some space ready. > > > > That makes sense for a purely thin provisioned device, but runs into > issues with block layer snapshots (re: my comments on the provision > mount option patch). I wonder if it makes more sense to provision at > some point before submitting writes or dirtying pagecache. IIRC we had > prototyped something in XFS a while back that performed an analogous > dm-thin fallocate at the time an extent is mapped for writes. I'm not > sure what the performance impact of that would be or if there's a nice > way to optimize away the obvious side effect of spurious requests. > > > But then it occurred to me -- what if the IO fails with ENOSPC? Do we > > keep going and hope for the best? Or maybe we should undo the > > allocation? That could be tricky since we'd have to add a transaction > > to undo the allocation, commit that, and then throw an error to the > > upper layers. > > > > Yeah, that's a good question. IMO we should be able to use something > like this to improve the failure handling for fs' over thinly > provisioned storage with dangerously low free space. There's not much > point in just submitting writes in response to failed provisions in that > case, but perhaps there is some more incremental use case or benefit I'm > not aware of..? > > The flipside of more reliably graceful error handling is there may be > more to the minimal solution than just firing off provisions on initial > allocation, unless you wanted to just rule out snapshots I guess. That > said, I think there's still potential opportunity for improvement. For > example, if a prototype did something like the following: > > - Provision the log at opportunistic points (i.e., on mount, first > transaction to a covered log, etc.) to guarantee log writes won't > fail. > - Provision extents mapped for data writes before the write is allowed > to proceed. > - Do something similar for metadata in AIL processing or some such, > where each item must be provisioned before written back. > - Shutdown the fs in response to any provision failure. > > ... obviously that comes with caveats, possibly bad performance, etc., > but it would be interesting to see if that is sufficient to catch most > scenarios where a write would otherwise get to an out of space volume > causing it to become inactive. If that could be made to work well > enough, perhaps the fs shutdown step could be replaced with some kind of > in-core pause/freeze like mode where the admin has the opportunity to > either add more storage and continue or explicitly shutdown to save the > volume. > > OTOH if that just doesn't work out, perhaps this can be combined with > other schemes to reliably prevent inactivation, such as the reservation > mechanism the dm guys had prototyped in the past. Of course that > potentially complicates the interface between the fs and dm-layer. > > > Should the allocator instead find the space it wants and issue the > > provisioning IO with the AGF locked, and try again somewhere else if the > > IO returns ENOSPC? If the space management IO takes forever, we've > > pinned the that AG for the duration, which is one of the not very nice > > aspects of the XFS FITRIM implementation on crappy SSDs. > > > > For a directio write, it's simple enough to throw that error back to > > userspace. I think the same applies to buffered writeback -- we'll > > cancel the writeback and set AS_ENOSPC on the mapping. > > > > But then, what about *metadata* allocation? If those fail because the > > provisioning encounters ENOSPC, we'll shut down the filesystem, which > > isn't nice. For XFS I guess we could reuse the existing metadata IO > > error config knobs to make it retry for some amount of time until > > (hopefully) the admin buys more storage. > > > > Let's go with the simplest implementation (issue it with the free space > > locked), and iterate from there. > > > > > Should filesystems that don't otherwise support UNSHARE_RANGE need to > > > support it in order to support an unshare request to COW'd blocks on > > > an underlying block device? > > > > Hmm. Currently, fallocate'ing part of a file that's already mapped to > > shared blocks is a nop. That's technically an omission in the > > implementation, since a subsequent write can fail during COW setup due > > to insufficient space. My memory about funshare is a bit murky since > > it's been years now. > > > > As I remember it, originally, I had allocate mode also calling unshare, > > but Dave or someone pointed out that unsharing generates a flood of > > dirty pagecache, and it would be a bit surprising that fallocate > > suddenly takes a long time to run. There also wasn't much precedent for > > fallocate to unshare blocks, since btrfs doesn't do that: > > > > # filefrag -v /mnt/[ab] > > Filesystem type is: 9123683e > > File size of /mnt/a is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) > > ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: > > 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof > > /mnt/a: 1 extent found > > File size of /mnt/b is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) > > ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: > > 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof > > /mnt/b: 1 extent found > > > > # xfs_io -c 'falloc 512k 36k' /mnt/b > > > > # filefrag -v /mnt/[ab] > > Filesystem type is: 9123683e > > File size of /mnt/a is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) > > ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: > > 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof > > /mnt/a: 1 extent found > > File size of /mnt/b is 1048576 (256 blocks of 4096 bytes) > > ext: logical_offset: physical_offset: length: expected: flags: > > 0: 0.. 255: 3328.. 3583: 256: last,shared,eof > > /mnt/b: 1 extent found > > > > I took funshare out of the patchset entirely (minimum viable product, > > yadda yadda) and a few months later, I think hch or someone asked for a > > knob for userspace to get a file back to pure overwrite mode. That's > > where it's been ever since. > > > > So to answer your question: fallocate mode 0 and REQ_OP_PROVISION > > probably ought to be allocating the holes and unsharing existing shared > > mappings. However, we could also wriggle out of that by <cough> > > claiming that fallocate has been consistent across filesystems in > > leaving that wart for userspace to trip over. :/ > > > > Thanks. That seems reasonable to me, but again isn't what the patches > appear to implement. ;P > > I guess from the standpoint of an I/O command, it probably makes more > sense to unshare by default. Why else would one send the command > otherwise? The falloc api is what it is at this point, so the bdev folks > could always decide if/how to implement a non-unsharing variant if there > happens to be some reason to do that. > > Brian > > > > I wonder if the smart thing to do here is separate out the question of a > > > new fallocate interface from the mechanism entirely. For example, > > > implement REQ_OP_PROVISION as you've already done, enable block layer > > > mode = 0 fallocate support (i.e. without FL_PROVISION, so whether a > > > request propagates from a loop device will be up to the backing fs), > > > implement the various fs features to support REQ_OP_PROVISION (i.e., > > > mount option, file attr, etc.), then tack on FL_FALLOC + ext4 support at > > > the end as an RFC/prototype. > > > > Yeah. > > > > > Even if we ultimately ended up with FL_PROVISION support, it might > > > actually make some sense to kick that can down the road a bit regardless > > > to give fs' a chance to implement basic REQ_OP_PROVISION support, get a > > > better understanding of how it works in practice, and then perhaps make > > > more informed decisions on things like sane defaults and/or how best to > > > expose it via fallocate. Thoughts? > > > > Agree. :) > > > > --D > > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > If you *don't* add this API flag and simply bake the REQ_OP_PROVISION > > > > > call into mode 0 fallocate, then the new functionality can be added (or > > > > > even backported) to existing kernels and customers can use it > > > > > immediately. If you *do*, then you get to wait a few years for > > > > > developers to add it to their codebases only after enough enterprise > > > > > distros pick up a new kernel to make it worth their while. > > > > > > > > > > > for thinly provisioned filesystems/ > > > > > > block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these > > > > > > allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision > > > > > > requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to > > > > > > preserve existing behavior. > > > > > > > > > > How expensive is this expected to be? Is this why you wanted a separate > > > > > mode flag? > > > > > > > > > Yes, the exact latency will depend on the stacked block devices and > > > > the fragmentation at the allocation layers. > > > > > > > > I did a quick test for benchmarking fallocate() with an: > > > > A) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'noprovision' > > > > B) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a dm-thin device. > > > > C) ext4 filesystem mounted with 'provision' on a loop device with a > > > > sparse backing file on the filesystem in (B). > > > > > > > > I tested file sizes from 512M to 8G, time taken for fallocate() in (A) > > > > remains expectedly flat at ~0.01-0.02s, but for (B), it scales from > > > > 0.03-0.4s and for (C) it scales from 0.04s-0.52s (I captured the exact > > > > time distribution in the cover letter > > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=167230113520636&w=2) > > > > > > > > +0.5s for a 8G fallocate doesn't sound a lot but I think fragmentation > > > > and how the block device is layered can make this worse... > > > > > > > > > --D > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > > > > > > include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- > > > > > > include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ > > > > > > 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c > > > > > > index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 > > > > > > --- a/block/fops.c > > > > > > +++ b/block/fops.c > > > > > > @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) > > > > > > > > > > > > #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ > > > > > > (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ > > > > > > - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) > > > > > > + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ > > > > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > > > > > > > static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > > > loff_t len) > > > > > > @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > > > filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); > > > > > > > > > > > > /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ > > > > > > - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > > > > - if (error) > > > > > > - goto fail; > > > > > > + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { > > > > > > + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); > > > > > > + if (error) > > > > > > + goto fail; > > > > > > + } > > > > > > > > > > > > switch (mode) { > > > > > > case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: > > > > > > @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, > > > > > > error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > > > len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > break; > > > > > > + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: > > > > > > + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, > > > > > > + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > > + break; > > > > > > default: > > > > > > error = -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > > > > } > > > > > > diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > > > index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 > > > > > > --- a/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > > > +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h > > > > > > @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { > > > > > > FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ > > > > > > FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ > > > > > > FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ > > > > > > - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) > > > > > > + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ > > > > > > + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) > > > > > > > > > > > > /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ > > > > > > #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > > > index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 > > > > > > --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > > > +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h > > > > > > @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ > > > > > > */ > > > > > > #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 > > > > > > > > > > > > +/* > > > > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate > > > > > > + * blocks for the range/EOF. > > > > > > + * > > > > > > + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. > > > > > > + */ > > > > > > +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 > > > > > > + > > > > > > #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */ > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 2.37.3 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
diff --git a/block/fops.c b/block/fops.c index 50d245e8c913..01bde561e1e2 100644 --- a/block/fops.c +++ b/block/fops.c @@ -598,7 +598,8 @@ static ssize_t blkdev_read_iter(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *to) #define BLKDEV_FALLOC_FL_SUPPORTED \ (FALLOC_FL_KEEP_SIZE | FALLOC_FL_PUNCH_HOLE | \ - FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE) + FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | FALLOC_FL_NO_HIDE_STALE | \ + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, loff_t len) @@ -634,9 +635,11 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, filemap_invalidate_lock(inode->i_mapping); /* Invalidate the page cache, including dirty pages. */ - error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); - if (error) - goto fail; + if (mode != FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) { + error = truncate_bdev_range(bdev, file->f_mode, start, end); + if (error) + goto fail; + } switch (mode) { case FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE: @@ -654,6 +657,10 @@ static long blkdev_fallocate(struct file *file, int mode, loff_t start, error = blkdev_issue_discard(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); break; + case FALLOC_FL_PROVISION: + error = blkdev_issue_provision(bdev, start >> SECTOR_SHIFT, + len >> SECTOR_SHIFT, GFP_KERNEL); + break; default: error = -EOPNOTSUPP; } diff --git a/include/linux/falloc.h b/include/linux/falloc.h index f3f0b97b1675..b9a40a61a59b 100644 --- a/include/linux/falloc.h +++ b/include/linux/falloc.h @@ -30,7 +30,8 @@ struct space_resv { FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE | \ FALLOC_FL_ZERO_RANGE | \ FALLOC_FL_INSERT_RANGE | \ - FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE) + FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE | \ + FALLOC_FL_PROVISION) /* on ia32 l_start is on a 32-bit boundary */ #if defined(CONFIG_X86_64) diff --git a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h index 51398fa57f6c..2d323d113eed 100644 --- a/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h +++ b/include/uapi/linux/falloc.h @@ -77,4 +77,12 @@ */ #define FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE 0x40 +/* + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION acts as a hint for thinly provisioned devices to allocate + * blocks for the range/EOF. + * + * FALLOC_FL_PROVISION can only be used with allocate-mode fallocate. + */ +#define FALLOC_FL_PROVISION 0x80 + #endif /* _UAPI_FALLOC_H_ */
FALLOC_FL_PROVISION is a new fallocate() allocation mode that sends a hint to (supported) thinly provisioned block devices to allocate space for the given range of sectors via REQ_OP_PROVISION. The man pages for both fallocate(2) and posix_fallocate(3) describe the default allocation mode as: ``` The default operation (i.e., mode is zero) of fallocate() allocates the disk space within the range specified by offset and len. ... subsequent writes to bytes in the specified range are guaranteed not to fail because of lack of disk space. ``` For thinly provisioned storage constructs (dm-thin, filesystems on sparse files), the term 'disk space' is overloaded and can either mean the apparent disk space in the filesystem/thin logical volume or the true disk space that will be utilized on the underlying non-sparse allocation layer. The use of a separate mode allows us to cleanly disambiguate whether fallocate() causes allocation only at the current layer (default mode) or whether it propagates allocations to underlying layers (provision mode) for thinly provisioned filesystems/ block devices. For devices that do not support REQ_OP_PROVISION, both these allocation modes will be equivalent. Given the performance cost of sending provision requests to the underlying layers, keeping the default mode as-is allows users to preserve existing behavior. Signed-off-by: Sarthak Kukreti <sarthakkukreti@chromium.org> --- block/fops.c | 15 +++++++++++---- include/linux/falloc.h | 3 ++- include/uapi/linux/falloc.h | 8 ++++++++ 3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)