linux-xfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Zygo Blaxell <ce3g8jdj@umail.furryterror.org>
To: Omar Sandoval <osandov@osandov.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org,
	"Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>,
	Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Btrfs: make a source length of 0 imply EOF for dedupe
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2016 21:02:10 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161123020210.GW21290@hungrycats.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <cover.1479427384.git.osandov@fb.com>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1933 bytes --]

On Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 04:07:48PM -0800, Omar Sandoval wrote:
> 3. Both XFS and Btrfs cap each dedupe operation to 16MB, but the
>    implicit EOF gets around this in the existing XFS implementation. I
>    copied this for the Btrfs implementation.

Somewhat tangential to this patch, but on the dedup topic:  Can we raise
or drop that 16MB limit?

The maximum btrfs extent length is 128MB.  Currently the btrfs dedup
behavior for a 128MB extent is to generate 8x16MB shared extent references
with different extent offsets to a single 128MB physical extent.
These references no longer look like the original 128MB extent to a
userspace dedup tool.  That raises the difficulty level substantially
for a userspace dedup tool when it tries to figure out which extents to
keep and which to discard or rewrite.

XFS may not have this problem--I haven't checked.  On btrfs it's
definitely not as simple as "bang two inode/offset/length pairs together
with dedup and disk space will be freed automagically."  If dedup is
done incorrectly on btrfs, it can end up just making the filesystem slow
without freeing any space.

The 16MB limit doesn't seem to be useful in practice.  The two useful
effects of the limit seem to be DoS mitigation.  There is no checking of
the RAM usage that I can find (i.e. if you fire off 16 dedup threads,
they want 256MB of RAM; put another way, if you want to tie up 16GB of
kernel RAM, all you have to do is create 1024 dedup threads), so it's
not an effective DoS mitigation feature.  Internally dedup could verify
blocks in batches of 16MB and check for signals/release and reacquire
locks in between, so it wouldn't tie up the kernel or the two inodes
for excessively long periods.

Even if we want to keep the 16MB limit, there's also no way to query the
kernel from userspace to find out what the limit is, other than by trial
and error.  It's not even in a header file, userspace just has to *know*.


[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

  parent reply	other threads:[~2016-11-23  2:11 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-11-18  0:07 [RFC PATCH 0/2] Btrfs: make a source length of 0 imply EOF for dedupe Omar Sandoval
2016-11-18  0:07 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] Btrfs: refactor btrfs_extent_same() slightly Omar Sandoval
2016-11-18  3:22   ` Qu Wenruo
2016-11-18  0:07 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: make a source length of 0 imply EOF for dedupe Omar Sandoval
2016-11-18  5:38 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] " Christoph Hellwig
2016-11-22 21:17   ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-23  2:02 ` Zygo Blaxell [this message]
2016-11-23  2:44   ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-24  5:16     ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-23  4:26   ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-23 13:55     ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-23 22:13       ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-23 23:14         ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-23 23:53           ` Dave Chinner
2016-11-24  1:26             ` Darrick J. Wong
2016-11-25  4:20               ` Zygo Blaxell
2016-11-28 17:58                 ` Darrick J. Wong

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=20161123020210.GW21290@hungrycats.org \
    --to=ce3g8jdj@umail.furryterror.org \
    --cc=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=osandov@osandov.com \
    --cc=quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).