btrfs: dynamic block_group reclaim threshold

We can currently recover allocated block_groups by:

- explicitly starting balance operations
- "auto reclaim" via bg_reclaim_threshold

The latter works by checking against a fixed threshold on frees. If we
pass from above the threshold to below, relocation triggers and the
block group will get reclaimed by the cleaner thread (assuming it is
still eligible)

Picking a threshold is challenging. Too high, and you end up trying to
reclaim very full block_groups which is quite costly, and you don't do
reclaim on block_groups that don't get quite THAT full, but could still
be quite fragmented and stranding a lot of space. Too low, and you
similarly miss out on reclaim even if you badly need it to avoid running
out of unallocated space, if you have heavily fragmented block groups
living above the threshold.

No matter the threshold, it suffers from a workload that happens to
bounce around that threshold, which can introduce arbitrary amounts of
reclaim waste.

To improve this situation, introduce a dynamic threshold. The basic idea
behind this threshold is that it should be very lax when there is plenty
of unallocated space, and increasingly aggressive as we approach zero
unallocated space. To that end, it sets a target for unallocated space
(10 chunks) and then linearly increases the threshold as the amount of
space short of the target we are increases. The formula is:
(target - unalloc) / target

I tested this by running it on three interesting workloads:

  1. bounce allocations around X% full.
  2. fill up all the way and introduce full fragmentation.
  3. write in a fragmented way until the filesystem is just about full.

1. and 2. attack the weaknesses of a fixed threshold; fixed either works
perfectly or fully falls apart, depending on the threshold. Dynamic
always handles these cases well.

3. attacks dynamic by checking whether it is too zealous to reclaim in
conditions with low unallocated and low unused. It tends to claw back
1GiB of unallocated fairly aggressively, but not much more. Early
versions of dynamic threshold struggled on this test.

Additional work could be done to intelligently ratchet up the urgency of
reclaim in very low unallocated conditions. Existing mechanisms are
already useless in that case anyway.

Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Boris Burkov <boris@bur.io>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>

1 files changed, 10 insertions, 8 deletions

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
index b530302b469d..8169a1465db1 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c
@@ -1764,24 +1764,21 @@ static inline bool btrfs_should_reclaim(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
 
 static bool should_reclaim_block_group(struct btrfs_block_group *bg, u64 bytes_freed)
 {
-	const struct btrfs_space_info *space_info = bg->space_info;
-	const int reclaim_thresh = READ_ONCE(space_info->bg_reclaim_threshold);
+	const int thresh_pct = btrfs_calc_reclaim_threshold(bg->space_info);
+	u64 thresh_bytes = mult_perc(bg->length, thresh_pct);
 	const u64 new_val = bg->used;
 	const u64 old_val = new_val + bytes_freed;
-	u64 thresh;
 
-	if (reclaim_thresh == 0)
+	if (thresh_bytes == 0)
 		return false;
 
-	thresh = mult_perc(bg->length, reclaim_thresh);
-
 	/*
 	 * If we were below the threshold before don't reclaim, we are likely a
 	 * brand new block group and we don't want to relocate new block groups.
 	 */
-	if (old_val < thresh)
+	if (old_val < thresh_bytes)
 		return false;
-	if (new_val >= thresh)
+	if (new_val >= thresh_bytes)
 		return false;
 	return true;
 }
@@ -1843,6 +1840,7 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work)
 		/* Don't race with allocators so take the groups_sem */
 		down_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
 
+		spin_lock(&space_info->lock);
 		spin_lock(&bg->lock);
 		if (bg->reserved || bg->pinned || bg->ro) {
 			/*
@@ -1852,6 +1850,7 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work)
 			 * this block group.
 			 */
 			spin_unlock(&bg->lock);
+			spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
 			up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
 			goto next;
 		}
@@ -1870,6 +1869,7 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work)
 			if (!btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, DISCARD_ASYNC))
 				btrfs_mark_bg_unused(bg);
 			spin_unlock(&bg->lock);
+			spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
 			up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
 			goto next;
 
@@ -1886,10 +1886,12 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work)
 		 */
 		if (!should_reclaim_block_group(bg, bg->length)) {
 			spin_unlock(&bg->lock);
+			spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
 			up_write(&space_info->groups_sem);
 			goto next;
 		}
 		spin_unlock(&bg->lock);
+		spin_unlock(&space_info->lock);
 
 		/*
 		 * Get out fast, in case we're read-only or unmounting the