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

[Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>]

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.

> 
> > +static void e2fsck_discard_blocks(e2fsck_t ctx, blk_t start,
> > +				  blk_t count)
> > +{
> > +	fd = open64(fs->device_name, O_RDWR);
> > +	if (fd < 0) {
> > +		com_err("open", errno,
> > +			_("while opening %s for discarding"),
> > +			ctx->device_name);
> > +		fatal_error(ctx, 0);
> > +	}
> > +
> > +	ret = ioctl(fd, BLKDISCARD, &range);
> > +	if (ret)
> > +		ctx->options &= ~E2F_OPT_DISCARD;
> > +
> > +	close(fd);
> > +}
> 
> If we are calling this ioctl for a lot of small block ranges, doing an open/close for each one could add significant overhead.  The unix struct_io_manager already has an open file descriptor for this block device, maybe it is better to encapsulate this operation there?  The ioctl also doesn't make sense for non-Linux platforms (though they may have a different ioctl that is equivalent) so that may be a better solution.

That is why the #ifdef __linux__ is there. I agree with using
struct_io_manager file descriptor.

> 
> (defect) It makes sense to start with a blk64_t for this function, instead of a blk_t that needs to be fixed immediately for > 16TB filesystems, or the block number will be truncated and accidentally discard the wrong data.  Oops.

Oh, I have missed that out.

> 
> 
> Cheers, Andreas

Thanks for review Andreas.

-Lukas