Re: [PATCH 4/4] Support discard if at least one underlying device supports it

[Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>]

On Fri, Jul 02 2010 at  3:49pm -0400,
Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@redhat.com> wrote:

> > As we discussed, we have a challenge where we need DM to avoid issuing
> > a barrier before the discard IFF a target doesn't support the discard
> > (which the barrier is paired with).
> > 
> > My understanding is that blkdev_issue_discard() only cares if the
> > discard was supported.  Barrier is used just to decorate the discard
> > (for correctness).  So by returning -EOPNOTSUPP we're saying the discard
> > isn't supported; we're not making any claims about the implict barrier,
> > so best to avoid the barrier entirely.
> > 
> > Otherwise we'll be issuing unnecessary barriers (and associated
> > performance loss).
> > 
> > So yet another TODO item... Anyway:
> > 
> > Acked-by: Mike Snitzer <snitzer@redhat.com>
> 
> Unnecessary barriers are issued anyway. With each freed extent.
>
> The code must issue a "SYNCHRONIZE CACHE" to flush cache for previous 
> writes, then "UNMAP" and then another "SYNCHRONIZE CACHE" to commit that 
> unmap to disk. And this in loop for all extents in 
> "release_blocks_on_commit".

You're delving into the mechanics of the discard when it is supported;
which is fine but tangential to my point above.  My point was DM
shouldn't issue any barrier(s) at all if it the discard will not be sent
(because a device doesn't support discards).

> One idea behind "discard barriers" was to submit a discard request and not 
> wait for it. Then the request would need a barrier so that it doesn't get 
> reordered with further writes (that may potentially write to the same area 
> as the discarded area). But discard isn't used this way anyway, 
> sb_issue_discard waits for completion, so the barrier isn't needed.
> 
> Even if ext4 developers wanted asynchronous discard requests, they should 
> fire all the discards at once and then submit one zero-sized barrier. Not 
> barrier with each discard request.

sb_issue_discard() is the block layer api that ext4 uses for discards.
Ext4, or any other filesystem that uses sb_issue_discard(), has no
control over the barriers that are issued.
 
> This is up to ext4 developers to optimize and remove the barriers and we 
> can't do anything with it. Just send "SYNCHRONIZE 
> CACHE"+"UNMAP"+"SYNCHRONIZE CACHE" like the barrier specification wants...

In practice that is what I see when I remove a file in ext4:

        kdmflush-2537  [000] 911436.484481: scsi_dispatch_cmd_start: host_no=5 channel=0 id=0 lun=0 data_sgl=0 prot_sgl=0 cmnd=(SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE - raw=35 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00)
        kdmflush-2537  [000] 911436.484482: scsi_dispatch_cmd_done: host_no=5 channel=0 id=0 lun=0 data_sgl=0 prot_sgl=0 cmnd=(SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE - raw=35 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00) result=(driver=DRIVER_OK host=DID_OK message=COMMAND_COMPLETE status=SAM_STAT_GOOD)

        kdmflush-2537  [000] 911436.484500: scsi_dispatch_cmd_start: host_no=5 channel=0 id=0 lun=0 data_sgl=1 prot_sgl=0 cmnd=(UNMAP regions=1 raw=42 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 18 00)
          <idle>-0     [000] 911436.485238: scsi_dispatch_cmd_done: host_no=5 channel=0 id=0 lun=0 data_sgl=1 prot_sgl=0 cmnd=(UNMAP regions=1 raw=42 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 18 00) result=(driver=DRIVER_OK host=DID_OK message=COMMAND_COMPLETE status=SAM_STAT_GOOD)

        kdmflush-2537  [000] 911436.485283: scsi_dispatch_cmd_start: host_no=5 channel=0 id=0 lun=0 data_sgl=0 prot_sgl=0 cmnd=(SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE - raw=35 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00)
        kdmflush-2537  [000] 911436.485284: scsi_dispatch_cmd_done: host_no=5 channel=0 id=0 lun=0 data_sgl=0 prot_sgl=0 cmnd=(SYNCHRONIZE_CACHE - raw=35 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00) result=(driver=DRIVER_OK host=DID_OK message=COMMAND_COMPLETE status=SAM_STAT_GOOD)

Mike