Re: [PATCH] e2fsck: Discard free data and inode blocks.

[Ric Wheeler <ricwheeler@gmail.com>]

  On 10/22/2010 10:32 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>
>>   On 10/22/2010 07:43 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>>> On Fri, 22 Oct 2010, Ric Wheeler wrote:
>>>
>>>>    On 10/22/2010 05:12 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 21 Oct 2010, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2010-10-21, at 08:15, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>>>>>>> In Pass 5 when we are checking block and inode bitmaps we have great
>>>>>>> opportunity to discard free space and unused inodes on the device,
>>>>>>> because bitmaps has just been verified as valid. This commit takes
>>>>>>> advantage of this opportunity and discards both, all free space and
>>>>>>> unused inodes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have added new option '-K' which when set, disables discard. Also
>>>>>>> when
>>>>>>> the underlying device does not support discard, or BLKDISCARD ioctl
>>>>>>> returns any kind of error, or when some errors occurred in bitmaps,
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> discard is disabled.
>>>>>> I'm always a bit nervous with patches like this, that will prevent
>>>>>> data
>>>>>> recovery after an e2fsck run (which seems like the opposite of what we
>>>>>> want from e2fsck).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Two suggestions:
>>>>>> - it probably makes sense to disable this by default, and allow it to
>>>>>> be
>>>>>>      specified on the command-line and e2fsck.conf
>>>>>> - should we really have a short option, or a "-E discard" and "-E
>>>>>> nodiscard"
>>>>>>      options, which allow us to change the default easily at some later
>>>>>> time
>>>>>>      (which we can't do with a single -K flag)
>>>>> Right, I agree it would be probably better to disable this by default.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> If we do disable it by default, I think that we might also want to be
>>>> consistent and disable the discard support in mkfs by default as well?
>>>>
>>>> thanks!
>>>>
>>>> Ric
>>>>
>>> I think that this will not be necessary. There is a concern that it might
>>> prevent data recovery after fsck because it might be already discarded
>>> (some weird fs corruption?) in pass 5. However in my opinion this is a
>>> very small window (if there even is any), because we have already passed
>>> check 1-4 and we have just confirmed that group descriptors should be ok.
>>> But when there is an even slight chance this might happen I would suggest
>>> that we really disable it by default (at least for a while - we will see
>>> then).
>>>
>>> On the other hand there is nothing to be afraid of in the case of mkfs,
>>> because we can not possibly lose any relevant data, because discard is
>>> done before the filesystem gets created.
>>>
>>> -Lukas
>> My concern with mkfs is that we have seen several devices which don't handle
>> this well.
>>
>> We will be using this TRIM (or UNMAP, etc) on lots of old, creaky hardware
>> with old firmware, so having it try on all devices is almost certainly going
>> to cause breakages, hangs, etc in the field....
>>
>> Ric
>>
> Well, so far the only breakages I have seen was with lots of small TRIMs
> (or UNMAPs, etc) issued in random pattern, never in case of mkfs which
> is quite a opposite - big sequential ranges.
>
> Hangs should be covered by those two patches:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=128774558623608&w=2
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=128767099123375&w=2
>
> if, of course, they get upstream. Also there is a big win, when discard
> also zeroes data, because in that case we can just skip inode table
> initialization (zeroing) without any need of in-kernel lazyinit code
> enabled. And we get all this for free. It was introduced with Sandeens
> patch:
>
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=128234048208327&w=2
>
> So, I would rather leave it on by default.
>
> -Lukas

You cannot 100% depend on discard zeroing blocks - that is not a universal 
requirement of devices that support it. Specifically, for ATA devices, I think 
that there are optional bits that specify how a device will behave when you read 
from a trimmed region.

Ric