From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com, snitzer@redhat.com,
david@fromorbit.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
xfs@oss.sgi.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] block: improvements for discard alignment
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:43:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120705214306.GA18063@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1341504104-1674-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 06:01:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> When a disk has a large discard_granularity, discards are not split with
> optimal alignment; the pessimization gets bigger as discard_granularity
> and max_discard_sectors become closer.
>
> Take the limit case of discard_granularity == max_discard_sectors == 64.
> Then, if a request is submitted for 256 sectors 2..257 it will be split
> like this: 2..65, 66..129, 130..193, 194..257. None of these requests
> is aligned, so in fact you might end up with no discarded logical blocks
> at all. With this patch, the split will be 2..63, 64..127, 128..191,
> 192..255, 256..257. The patches also take the discard_alignment into
> consideration.
>
> Patch 1 adjusts the computation of the granularity-adjusted
> max_discard_sectors so that it prepares for the new code in patch 2,
> which actually adjusts the split.
>
> v2->v3: drop addition of queue/discard_alignment to sysfs, use
> correct alignment for partitions
>
> Paolo Bonzini (2):
> block: reorganize rounding of max_discard_sectors
> block: split discard into aligned requests
Looks good to me. Did little testing with scsi_debug with discard_alignment=0
and discard_alignment=7 (sectors). We seem to be aligning requests better now.
Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Thanks
Vivek
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: axboe@kernel.dk, martin.petersen@oracle.com, snitzer@redhat.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
dm-devel@redhat.com, hch@lst.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] block: improvements for discard alignment
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:43:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120705214306.GA18063@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1341504104-1674-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 06:01:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> When a disk has a large discard_granularity, discards are not split with
> optimal alignment; the pessimization gets bigger as discard_granularity
> and max_discard_sectors become closer.
>
> Take the limit case of discard_granularity == max_discard_sectors == 64.
> Then, if a request is submitted for 256 sectors 2..257 it will be split
> like this: 2..65, 66..129, 130..193, 194..257. None of these requests
> is aligned, so in fact you might end up with no discarded logical blocks
> at all. With this patch, the split will be 2..63, 64..127, 128..191,
> 192..255, 256..257. The patches also take the discard_alignment into
> consideration.
>
> Patch 1 adjusts the computation of the granularity-adjusted
> max_discard_sectors so that it prepares for the new code in patch 2,
> which actually adjusts the split.
>
> v2->v3: drop addition of queue/discard_alignment to sysfs, use
> correct alignment for partitions
>
> Paolo Bonzini (2):
> block: reorganize rounding of max_discard_sectors
> block: split discard into aligned requests
Looks good to me. Did little testing with scsi_debug with discard_alignment=0
and discard_alignment=7 (sectors). We seem to be aligning requests better now.
Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Thanks
Vivek
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, snitzer@redhat.com,
david@fromorbit.com, dm-devel@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
hch@lst.de, martin.petersen@oracle.com, axboe@kernel.dk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] block: improvements for discard alignment
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:43:06 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120705214306.GA18063@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1341504104-1674-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
On Thu, Jul 05, 2012 at 06:01:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> When a disk has a large discard_granularity, discards are not split with
> optimal alignment; the pessimization gets bigger as discard_granularity
> and max_discard_sectors become closer.
>
> Take the limit case of discard_granularity == max_discard_sectors == 64.
> Then, if a request is submitted for 256 sectors 2..257 it will be split
> like this: 2..65, 66..129, 130..193, 194..257. None of these requests
> is aligned, so in fact you might end up with no discarded logical blocks
> at all. With this patch, the split will be 2..63, 64..127, 128..191,
> 192..255, 256..257. The patches also take the discard_alignment into
> consideration.
>
> Patch 1 adjusts the computation of the granularity-adjusted
> max_discard_sectors so that it prepares for the new code in patch 2,
> which actually adjusts the split.
>
> v2->v3: drop addition of queue/discard_alignment to sysfs, use
> correct alignment for partitions
>
> Paolo Bonzini (2):
> block: reorganize rounding of max_discard_sectors
> block: split discard into aligned requests
Looks good to me. Did little testing with scsi_debug with discard_alignment=0
and discard_alignment=7 (sectors). We seem to be aligning requests better now.
Acked-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com>
Thanks
Vivek
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-07-05 21:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-07-05 16:01 [PATCH v3 0/2] block: improvements for discard alignment Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-05 16:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-05 16:01 ` [PATCH v3 1/2] block: reorganize rounding of max_discard_sectors Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-05 16:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-05 16:01 ` [PATCH v3 2/2] block: split discard into aligned requests Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-05 16:01 ` Paolo Bonzini
2012-07-17 7:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-17 7:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-07-05 21:43 ` Vivek Goyal [this message]
2012-07-05 21:43 ` [PATCH v3 0/2] block: improvements for discard alignment Vivek Goyal
2012-07-05 21:43 ` Vivek Goyal
2012-08-01 13:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-08-01 13:40 ` Mike Snitzer
2012-08-01 15:49 ` Jens Axboe
2012-08-01 15:49 ` Jens Axboe
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=20120705214306.GA18063@redhat.com \
--to=vgoyal@redhat.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=dm-devel@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=martin.petersen@oracle.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=snitzer@redhat.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.