From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: [PATCH] xfs: xfs_release don't free eofblocks with extsize hint
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2012 14:29:48 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120611192948.GX29173@sgi.com> (raw)
Testing has shown that there is a regression when using extent size
hints with NFS. There are many more extents created than expected.
This is the workload, from a single NFS client:
# for e in `seq 1 8`;
do
mkdir -p $e; (cd $e; dd if=/dev/zero of=file bs=4096k count=100) &
done
# xfs_io -c extsize .
[16777216] .
Here is the extent count for each file without this patch:
385 387 387 387 400 398 379 334
Here is the extent count with commit aff3a9ed reverted (using delayed
allocation):
3 4 2 3 4 4 3 3
In a comparison of traces, one with the above workload run locally and
the other with the above workload over NFS, there were occasional calls
to xfs_free_eofblocks in NFS but not on local workloads. These turned
out to be from xfs_release.
Not calling xfs_free_eofblocks when using the extent size hint resolves this
issue when using extsize hints and NFS. I suspect that delayed allocation
mitigated the effect of xfs_free_eofblocks until commit aff3a9ed.
Here is the extent count with this patch:
6 3 9 12 3 3 8 10
Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
===================================================================
--- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
+++ xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c
@@ -547,8 +547,9 @@ xfs_release(
if ((S_ISREG(ip->i_d.di_mode) &&
(VFS_I(ip)->i_size > 0 ||
(VN_CACHED(VFS_I(ip)) > 0 || ip->i_delayed_blks > 0)) &&
- (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS)) &&
- (!(ip->i_d.di_flags & (XFS_DIFLAG_PREALLOC | XFS_DIFLAG_APPEND)))) {
+ (ip->i_df.if_flags & XFS_IFEXTENTS)) &&
+ (!(ip->i_d.di_flags & (XFS_DIFLAG_PREALLOC|XFS_DIFLAG_APPEND))) &&
+ (!xfs_get_extsz_hint(ip))) {
/*
* If we can't get the iolock just skip truncating the blocks
@@ -570,6 +571,11 @@ xfs_release(
* release. Hence on the first dirty close we will still remove
* the speculative allocation, but after that we will leave it
* in place.
+ *
+ * Additionally, do not free eofblocks for files with the
+ * extent size hint set. This can cause excessive
+ * fragmentation which is inconsistent with the intent
+ * of the extsize feature.
*/
if (xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_IDIRTY_RELEASE))
return 0;
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next reply other threads:[~2012-06-11 19:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-06-11 19:29 Ben Myers [this message]
2012-06-12 1:11 ` [PATCH] xfs: xfs_release don't free eofblocks with extsize hint Dave Chinner
2012-06-19 7:48 ` Christoph Hellwig
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=20120611192948.GX29173@sgi.com \
--to=bpm@sgi.com \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox