From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
Thomas Lynema <lyz27@yahoo.com>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: Poor performance using discard
Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 01:31:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120301063113.GA15854@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20120301062709.GB5091@dastard>
On Thu, Mar 01, 2012 at 05:27:09PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> One other thing the ext4 tracing implementation does is merge
> adjacent ranges, whereas the XFS implementation does not. XFS has
> more tracking complexity than ext4, though, in that it tracks free
> extents in multiple concurrent journal commits whereas ext4 only has
> to track across a single journal commit. Hence ext4 can merge
> without having to care about where the adjacent range is being
> committed in the same journal checkpoint.
>
> Further, ext4 doesn't reallocate from the freed extents until after
> the journal commit completes, whilst XFS can reallocate freed ranges
> before the freeing is journalled and hence can modify ranges in the
> free list prior to journal commit.
>
> We could probably implement extent merging in the free extent
> tracking similar to ext4, but I'm not sure how much it would gain us
> because of the way we do reallocation of freed ranges prior to
> journal commit....
Also there generally aren't that many merging opportunities. Back when
I implemented the code and looked at block traces we'd get them
occasionally:
(a) for inode buffers due to the inode clusters beeing smaller than the
inode chunks. Better fixed by increasing the amount of inode
clustering we do.
(b) during rm -rf sometimes when lots of small files were end-to-end,
but this doesn't happen all that often.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-03-01 6:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-02-28 22:56 Poor performance using discard Thomas Lynema
2012-02-28 23:58 ` Peter Grandi
2012-02-29 1:22 ` Dave Chinner
2012-02-29 2:00 ` Thomas Lynema
2012-02-29 4:08 ` Dave Chinner
2012-02-29 10:38 ` Peter Grandi
2012-02-29 19:46 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-03-01 5:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-03-01 6:27 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-01 6:31 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
[not found] ` <1330658311.6438.24.camel@core24>
2012-03-02 14:57 ` Thomas Lynema
2012-03-02 15:41 ` Thomas Lynema
2012-03-05 3:02 ` Dave Chinner
2012-03-05 6:41 ` Jeffrey Hundstad
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120301063113.GA15854@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=lyz27@yahoo.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.