From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08E11C49EA2 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:50:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E13696128C for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2021 00:50:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S230332AbhFVAw0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:52:26 -0400 Received: from new2-smtp.messagingengine.com ([66.111.4.224]:55719 "EHLO new2-smtp.messagingengine.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229762AbhFVAw0 (ORCPT ); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:52:26 -0400 Received: from compute4.internal (compute4.nyi.internal [10.202.2.44]) by mailnew.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BE6D58093D; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:50:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute4.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:50:10 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= joshtriplett.org; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:content-type:in-reply-to; s=fm1; bh=9el dDyQA++qoFzO7hCTNTbCYp8KItiVM/rYw2DU6q8g=; b=ZM1Y0Avv66T3WGVuick vUdnaOf+vbdFr4u50MLDZNef0VtKUjvLoJRvYDI5Iu8Xi3PavbTAoVpnz9VBh92P /Ua1jGiJjgp6PZ7kIQ2kLDcpGrGaszoklMISnBqVrdz8/BAQNZyxMNpXtYLA6w/t vXmpcD9cYpyhS1IuFSeHGgMYSAWPSCz7V88Xc9FjtXIX1EagGhfuErVvI5BfX8vL BNnTKqEPe1QJ0c+riqo07jZQTitFUOsnEyy+Z1dhpqIHvioP81/WL/JNTVrpKpVs L1fG6J6Q3WXjcpmGsTB8uQ4Wt9YRE/9zA/wUhzmRA7iBVfUrA4g9e7yY4uILU4wT S/g== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=9eldDy QA++qoFzO7hCTNTbCYp8KItiVM/rYw2DU6q8g=; b=ohNed3FJtDIhPEJntkS3nD 7+3c79cNNvwa7iwIKmE8vF8prSOxHrn6MQpGubSCMezZoobu+mPxUzwpM5XxPTAo D/A7vXud4vXvHMzcXUL/dBwdB6MQ8XZNO2ZmmjBIDDVnH1UQpTSTB+90k07lq0H9 ImG3mhbHrqpFTMtPD9yrPbvb/YZM0DS7q5GT74aoyXpaGCjSV3oR3JcUz0bljy79 d1hHCTBS0K1fONjInBVJ8IuBHp+CwGlKh6R5cvDwQwm5pXn5lR+w4dI22U3thiJp 9jUyGqNYBtzUZYbpHRPGXAJHphuOFxS+vq/3/hHVWfjqnlwPiv/9NCttFA4y8l9w == X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduledrfeegtddggedtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepfffhvffukfhfgggtuggjsehttdertddttddvnecuhfhrohhmpeflohhshhcu vfhrihhplhgvthhtuceojhhoshhhsehjohhshhhtrhhiphhlvghtthdrohhrgheqnecugg ftrfgrthhtvghrnhepteffkefhtdeitdfhteekfffhhfffheetfedujeeftefhjeegleeu ffeftdehheffnecuffhomhgrihhnpehoiihlrggsshdrohhrghenucevlhhushhtvghruf hiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehjohhshhesjhhoshhhthhrihhp lhgvthhtrdhorhhg X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Mon, 21 Jun 2021 20:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 21 Jun 2021 17:50:07 -0700 From: Josh Triplett To: Andreas Dilger Cc: David Howells , Theodore Ts'o , "Darrick J. Wong" , Chris Mason , Ext4 Developers List , xfs , linux-btrfs , linux-cachefs@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel , NeilBrown Subject: Re: How capacious and well-indexed are ext4, xfs and btrfs directories? Message-ID: References: <206078.1621264018@warthog.procyon.org.uk> <6E4DE257-4220-4B5B-B3D0-B67C7BC69BB5@dilger.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 03:13:52PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > There was a patch pushed recently that targets "-o discard" performance: > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/linux-ext4/list/?series=244091 > that needs a bit more work, but may be worthwhile to test if it improves > your workload, and help put some weight behind landing it? I just got a chance to test that patch (using the same storage stack, with ext4 atop dm-crypt on the same SSD). That patch series makes a *massive* difference; with that patch series (rebased atop latest 5.13.0-rc7) and the test case from my previous mail, `rm -r testdir` takes the same amount of time (~17s) whether I have discard enabled or disabled, and doesn't disrupt the rest of the system. Without the patch, that same removal took many minutes, and stalled out the rest of the system. Thanks for the reference; I'll follow up to the thread for that patch with the same information. - Josh Triplett