commit d96b34248c upstream.
We don't allow send and balance/relocation to run in parallel in order
to prevent send failing or silently producing some bad stream. This is
because while send is using an extent (specially metadata) or about to
read a metadata extent and expecting it belongs to a specific parent
node, relocation can run, the transaction used for the relocation is
committed and the extent gets reallocated while send is still using the
extent, so it ends up with a different content than expected. This can
result in just failing to read a metadata extent due to failure of the
validation checks (parent transid, level, etc), failure to find a
backreference for a data extent, and other unexpected failures. Besides
reallocation, there's also a similar problem of an extent getting
discarded when it's unpinned after the transaction used for block group
relocation is committed.
The restriction between balance and send was added in commit 9e967495e0
("Btrfs: prevent send failures and crashes due to concurrent relocation"),
kernel 5.3, while the more general restriction between send and relocation
was added in commit 1cea5cf0e6 ("btrfs: ensure relocation never runs
while we have send operations running"), kernel 5.14.
Both send and relocation can be very long running operations. Relocation
because it has to do a lot of IO and expensive backreference lookups in
case there are many snapshots, and send due to read IO when operating on
very large trees. This makes it inconvenient for users and tools to deal
with scheduling both operations.
For zoned filesystem we also have automatic block group relocation, so
send can fail with -EAGAIN when users least expect it or send can end up
delaying the block group relocation for too long. In the future we might
also get the automatic block group relocation for non zoned filesystems.
This change makes it possible for send and relocation to run in parallel.
This is achieved the following way:
1) For all tree searches, send acquires a read lock on the commit root
semaphore;
2) After each tree search, and before releasing the commit root semaphore,
the leaf is cloned and placed in the search path (struct btrfs_path);
3) After releasing the commit root semaphore, the changed_cb() callback
is invoked, which operates on the leaf and writes commands to the pipe
(or file in case send/receive is not used with a pipe). It's important
here to not hold a lock on the commit root semaphore, because if we did
we could deadlock when sending and receiving to the same filesystem
using a pipe - the send task blocks on the pipe because it's full, the
receive task, which is the only consumer of the pipe, triggers a
transaction commit when attempting to create a subvolume or reserve
space for a write operation for example, but the transaction commit
blocks trying to write lock the commit root semaphore, resulting in a
deadlock;
4) Before moving to the next key, or advancing to the next change in case
of an incremental send, check if a transaction used for relocation was
committed (or is about to finish its commit). If so, release the search
path(s) and restart the search, to where we were before, so that we
don't operate on stale extent buffers. The search restarts are always
possible because both the send and parent roots are RO, and no one can
add, remove of update keys (change their offset) in RO trees - the
only exception is deduplication, but that is still not allowed to run
in parallel with send;
5) Periodically check if there is contention on the commit root semaphore,
which means there is a transaction commit trying to write lock it, and
release the semaphore and reschedule if there is contention, so as to
avoid causing any significant delays to transaction commits.
This leaves some room for optimizations for send to have less path
releases and re searching the trees when there's relocation running, but
for now it's kept simple as it performs quite well (on very large trees
with resulting send streams in the order of a few hundred gigabytes).
Test case btrfs/187, from fstests, stresses relocation, send and
deduplication attempting to run in parallel, but without verifying if send
succeeds and if it produces correct streams. A new test case will be added
that exercises relocation happening in parallel with send and then checks
that send succeeds and the resulting streams are correct.
A final note is that for now this still leaves the mutual exclusion
between send operations and deduplication on files belonging to a root
used by send operations. A solution for that will be slightly more complex
but it will eventually be built on top of this change.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
a1ce40f8ae