From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: dchinner@redhat.com, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: Avoid pathological backwards allocation
Date: Mon, 20 May 2013 09:57:36 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <519A39E0.1020309@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130520135607.GA11502@quack.suse.cz>
On 05/20/13 08:56, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 11-04-13 22:09:56, Jan Kara wrote:
>> Writing a large file using direct IO in 16 MB chunks sometimes results
>> in a pathological allocation pattern where 16 MB chunks of large free
>> extent are allocated to a file in a reversed order. So extents of a file
>> look for example as:
>>
>> ext logical physical expected length flags
>> 0 0 13 4550656
>> 1 4550656 188136807 4550668 12562432
>> 2 17113088 200699240 200699238 622592
>> 3 17735680 182046055 201321831 4096
>> 4 17739776 182041959 182050150 4096
>> 5 17743872 182037863 182046054 4096
>> 6 17747968 182033767 182041958 4096
>> 7 17752064 182029671 182037862 4096
>> ...
>> 6757 45400064 154381644 154389835 4096
>> 6758 45404160 154377548 154385739 4096
>> 6759 45408256 252951571 154381643 73728 eof
>>
>> This happens because XFS_ALLOCTYPE_THIS_BNO allocation fails (the last
>> extent in the file cannot be further extended) so we fall back to
>> XFS_ALLOCTYPE_NEAR_BNO allocation which picks end of a large free
>> extent as the best place to continue the file. Since the chunk at the
>> end of the free extent again cannot be further extended, this behavior
>> repeats until the whole free extent is consumed in a reversed order.
>>
>> For data allocations this backward allocation isn't beneficial so make
>> xfs_alloc_compute_diff() pick start of a free extent instead of its end
>> for them. That avoids the backward allocation pattern.
>>
>> See thread at http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-03/msg00144.html for
>> more details about the reproduction case and why this solution was
>> chosen.
>>
>> Based on idea by Dave Chinner<dchinner@redhat.com>.
>>
>> CC: Dave Chinner<dchinner@redhat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner@redhat.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara<jack@suse.cz>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++------
>> 1 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> v2: Updated comment and commit description.
> Could anybody pull this patch into XFS tree? I don't see it there...
>
> Honza
Sorry, a miscommunication on my part that this belonged in the dev tree
but not in the for Linus pull for Linux 3.10.
--Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-05-20 14:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-04-11 20:09 [PATCH v2] xfs: Avoid pathological backwards allocation Jan Kara
2013-04-16 15:41 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-05-20 13:56 ` Jan Kara
2013-05-20 14:57 ` Mark Tinguely [this message]
2013-05-20 18:10 ` Ben Myers
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=519A39E0.1020309@sgi.com \
--to=tinguely@sgi.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--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.