From fd8b829195495a0b3d6b3cc88c3b77f2c9c115e4 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jan Kara Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 11:21:24 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] ext4: make mballoc try target group first even with mb_optimize_scan commit 4fca50d440cc5d4dc570ad5484cc0b70b381bc2a upstream. One of the side-effects of mb_optimize_scan was that the optimized functions to select next group to try were called even before we tried the goal group. As a result we no longer allocate files close to corresponding inodes as well as we don't try to expand currently allocated extent in the same group. This results in reaim regression with workfile.disk workload of upto 8% with many clients on my test machine: baseline mb_optimize_scan Hmean disk-1 2114.16 ( 0.00%) 2099.37 ( -0.70%) Hmean disk-41 87794.43 ( 0.00%) 83787.47 * -4.56%* Hmean disk-81 148170.73 ( 0.00%) 135527.05 * -8.53%* Hmean disk-121 177506.11 ( 0.00%) 166284.93 * -6.32%* Hmean disk-161 220951.51 ( 0.00%) 207563.39 * -6.06%* Hmean disk-201 208722.74 ( 0.00%) 203235.59 ( -2.63%) Hmean disk-241 222051.60 ( 0.00%) 217705.51 ( -1.96%) Hmean disk-281 252244.17 ( 0.00%) 241132.72 * -4.41%* Hmean disk-321 255844.84 ( 0.00%) 245412.84 * -4.08%* Also this is causing huge regression (time increased by a factor of 5 or so) when untarring archive with lots of small files on some eMMC storage cards. Fix the problem by making sure we try goal group first. Fixes: 196e402adf2e ("ext4: improve cr 0 / cr 1 group scanning") CC: stable@kernel.org Reported-and-tested-by: Stefan Wahren Tested-by: Ojaswin Mujoo Reviewed-by: Ritesh Harjani (IBM) Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20220727105123.ckwrhbilzrxqpt24@quack3/ Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/0d81a7c2-46b7-6010-62a4-3e6cfc1628d6@i2se.com/ Signed-off-by: Jan Kara Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220908092136.11770-1-jack@suse.cz Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 14 +++++++------- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c index 110473e66286a..d43569480225a 100644 --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c @@ -1052,8 +1052,10 @@ static void ext4_mb_choose_next_group(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac, { *new_cr = ac->ac_criteria; - if (!should_optimize_scan(ac) || ac->ac_groups_linear_remaining) + if (!should_optimize_scan(ac) || ac->ac_groups_linear_remaining) { + *group = next_linear_group(ac, *group, ngroups); return; + } if (*new_cr == 0) { ext4_mb_choose_next_group_cr0(ac, new_cr, group, ngroups); @@ -2633,7 +2635,7 @@ static noinline_for_stack int ext4_mb_regular_allocator(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac) { ext4_group_t prefetch_grp = 0, ngroups, group, i; - int cr = -1; + int cr = -1, new_cr; int err = 0, first_err = 0; unsigned int nr = 0, prefetch_ios = 0; struct ext4_sb_info *sbi; @@ -2708,13 +2710,11 @@ repeat: ac->ac_groups_linear_remaining = sbi->s_mb_max_linear_groups; prefetch_grp = group; - for (i = 0; i < ngroups; group = next_linear_group(ac, group, ngroups), - i++) { - int ret = 0, new_cr; + for (i = 0, new_cr = cr; i < ngroups; i++, + ext4_mb_choose_next_group(ac, &new_cr, &group, ngroups)) { + int ret = 0; cond_resched(); - - ext4_mb_choose_next_group(ac, &new_cr, &group, ngroups); if (new_cr != cr) { cr = new_cr; goto repeat; -- 2.30.2