All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: defer online discard submission to a workqueue
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:46:09 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181109154608.GB5572@bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181109150610.GB9153@infradead.org>

On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:06:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 09:23:11AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > My
> > understanding is that these discards can stack up and take enough time
> > that a limit on outstanding discards is required, which now that I think
> > of it makes me somewhat skeptical of the whole serial execution thing.
> > Hitting that outstanding discard request limit is what bubbles up the
> > stack and affects XFS by holding up log forces, since new discard
> > submissions are presumably blocked on completion of the oldest
> > outstanding request.
> 
> We don't do strict ordering or request, but eventually requests
> waiting for completion will block others from being submitted.
> 

Ok, that's kind of what I expected.

> > I'm not quite sure what happens in the block layer if that limit were
> > lifted. Perhaps it assumes throttling responsibility directly via
> > queues/plugs? I'd guess that at minimum we'd end up blocking indirectly
> > somewhere (via memory allocation pressure?) anyways, so ISTM that some
> > kind of throttling is inevitable in this situation. What am I missing?
> 
> We'll still block new allocations waiting for these blocks and
> other bits.  Or to put it another way - if your discard implementation
> is slow (independent of synchronous or not) your are going to be in
> a world of pain with online discard.  That is what it's not default
> to start with.

Sure, it's not really the XFS bits I was asking about here. This is
certainly not a high priority and not a common use case. We're working
through some of the other issues in the other sub-thread. In particular,
I'm wondering if we can provide broader improvements to the overall
mechanism to reduce some of that pain.

Brian

      reply	other threads:[~2018-11-10  1:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-11-05 18:10 [PATCH] xfs: defer online discard submission to a workqueue Brian Foster
2018-11-05 21:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-05 22:20   ` Eric Sandeen
2018-11-09 15:04     ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-06 14:23   ` Brian Foster
2018-11-06 21:18     ` Dave Chinner
2018-11-07 13:42       ` Brian Foster
2018-11-08  0:38         ` Dave Chinner
2018-11-08 13:50           ` Brian Foster
2018-11-09  0:20             ` Dave Chinner
2018-11-09 15:23               ` Brian Foster
2018-11-09 15:06     ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-09 15:46       ` Brian Foster [this message]

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=20181109154608.GB5572@bfoster \
    --to=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /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.