All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: [PATCH] xfs: xfs_release don't free eofblocks with extsize hint
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:29:48 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120611192948.GX29173@sgi.com> (raw)

Testing has shown that there is a regression when using extent size
hints with NFS.  There are many more extents created than expected.

This is the workload, from a single NFS client:
# for e in `seq 1 8`;
do
	mkdir -p $e; (cd $e; dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=4096k count=100) &
done

# xfs_io -c extsize .
[16777216] .

Here is the extent count for each file without this patch:

385 387 387 387 400 398 379 334

Here is the extent count with commit aff3a9ed reverted (using delayed
allocation):

3 4 2 3 4 4 3 3

In a comparison of traces, one with the above workload run locally and
the other with the above workload over NFS, there were occasional calls
to xfs_free_eofblocks in NFS but not on local workloads.  These turned
out to be from xfs_release.

Not calling xfs_free_eofblocks when using the extent size hint resolves this
issue when using extsize hints and NFS.  I suspect that delayed allocation
mitigated the effect of xfs_free_eofblocks until commit aff3a9ed.

Here is the extent count with this patch:

6 3 9 12 3 3 8 10

Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>

Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
===================================================================
--- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
+++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
@@ -547,8 +547,9 @@ xfs_release(
 	if ((S_ISREG(ip->i_d.di_mode) &&
 	     (VFS_I(ip)->i_size > 0 ||
 	      (VN_CACHED(VFS_I(ip)) > 0 || ip->i_delayed_blks > 0)) &&
-	     (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS))  &&
-	    (!(ip->i_d.di_flags & (XFS_DIFLAG_PREALLOC | XFS_DIFLAG_APPEND)))) {
+	     (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS)) &&
+	    (!(ip->i_d.di_flags & (XFS_DIFLAG_PREALLOC|XFS_DIFLAG_APPEND))) &&
+	    (!xfs_get_extsz_hint(ip))) {
 
 		/*
 		 * If we can't get the iolock just skip truncating the blocks
@@ -570,6 +571,11 @@ xfs_release(
 		 * release. Hence on the first dirty close we will still remove
 		 * the speculative allocation, but after that we will leave it
 		 * in place.
+		 *
+		 * Additionally, do not free eofblocks for files with the
+		 * extent size hint set.  This can cause excessive
+		 * fragmentation which is inconsistent with the intent
+		 * of the extsize feature.
 		 */
 		if (xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_IDIRTY_RELEASE))
 			return 0;

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

             reply	other threads:[~2012-06-11 19:22 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-11 19:29 Ben Myers [this message]
2012-06-12  1:11 ` [PATCH] xfs: xfs_release don't free eofblocks with extsize hint Dave Chinner
2012-06-19  7:48   ` Christoph Hellwig

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=20120611192948.GX29173@sgi.com \
    --to=bpm@sgi.com \
    --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.