Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add batched discard support for ext4.

[Mark Lord <kernel@teksavvy.com>]

On 20/04/10 05:21 PM, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> Mark,
>
> This is the patch implementing the new discard logic.
..
> Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
..
>> +void ext4_trim_extent(struct super_block *sb, int start, int count,
>> +               ext4_group_t group, struct ext4_buddy *e4b)
>> +{
>> +       ext4_fsblk_t discard_block;
>> +       struct ext4_super_block *es = EXT4_SB(sb)->s_es;
>> +       struct ext4_free_extent ex;
>> +
>> +       assert_spin_locked(ext4_group_lock_ptr(sb, group));
>> +
>> +       ex.fe_start = start;
>> +       ex.fe_group = group;
>> +       ex.fe_len = count;
>> +
>> +       mb_mark_used(e4b,&ex);
>> +       ext4_unlock_group(sb, group);
>> +
>> +       discard_block = (ext4_fsblk_t)group *
>> +                       EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(sb)
>> +                       + start
>> +                       + le32_to_cpu(es->s_first_data_block);
>> +       trace_ext4_discard_blocks(sb,
>> +                       (unsigned long long)discard_block,
>> +                       count);
>> +       sb_issue_discard(sb, discard_block, count);
>> +
>> +       ext4_lock_group(sb, group);
>> +       mb_free_blocks(NULL, e4b, start, ex.fe_len);
>> +}
>
> Mark, unless I'm missing something, sb_issue_discard() above is going
> to trigger a trim command for just the one range.  I thought the
> benchmarks you did showed that a collection of ranges needed to be
> built, then a single trim command invoked that trimmed that group of
> ranges.
..

Mmm.. If that's what it is doing, then this patch set would be a complete disaster.
It would take *hours* to do the initial TRIM.

Lukas ?