Re: [PATCH] xfs_io: support a basic extent swap command

[Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 03:23:19PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 08, 2018 at 10:02:17AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:47:12AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 12:34:41PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Feb 06, 2018 at 08:02:47AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > Extent swap is a low level mechanism exported by XFS to facilitate
> > > > > filesystem defragmentation. It is typically invoked by xfs_fsr under
> > > > > conditions that will atomically adjust inode extent state without
> > > > > loss of file data.
> > > > > 
> > > > > xfs_fsr does not provide the necessary controls for low-level
> > > > > testing of the extent swap command, however. For example, xfs_fsr
> > > > > implements policies that dictate when to perform an extent swap and
> > > > > offers no control over the donor file characteristics.
> > > > 
> > > > Hmmmm. I'm confused - we already use xfs_fsr for low level testing
> > > > of swapext functionality with carefully constructed donor file
> > > > characteristics in xfs/227.
> > > > 
> > > > What am I missing here?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > AFAICT, xfs/227 does so by formatting the filesystem in a particular way
> > > and running fsr over it, so it wasn't immediately clear to me what
> > > you're referring to. Staring at it some more, it appears to be using the
> > > -C debug option which looks like it forces an extent count..? If that's
> > > the case, the test[1] that was posted to use this feature could probably
> > > be modified to do a similar thing via xfs_fsr.
> > > 
> > > Giving it a quick test, it doesn't appear to do exactly what I want with
> > > larger extent counts, however. It seems to work with a few extents or
> > > so, then doesn't ever create more than 4 or 5 if that's what I ask for
> > > with the donor file. Hmm, I wonder if prealloc or something is getting
> > > in the way of whatever it's attempting to do. If I try a similar test
> > > using falloc instead of pwrite, it doesn't do the swap at all. :/
> > 
> > Yeah, that's because of the way xfs_fsr preserves unwritten extents
> > across defragmentation. i.e. it assumes unwritten extents are a
> > result of application level preallocation and so it's there
> > intentionally and be preserved.
> > 
> > When I wrote this yesterday, I hadn't see the test you'd posted to
> > the fstests list so I didn't have that context. Now that I've seen
> > it, and you've explained the problems, I can see why you wrote the
> > simpler xfs_io test command....
> > 
> > [....]
> > 
> > > So unless there's any objections, I can try to reword the commit log for
> > > this patch to make the advantages/differences more clear.
> > 
> > Yeah, I think that's all that is necessary - just expand on
> > "xfs_fsr does not provide the necessary controls" a bit so I don't
> > have to rely on my brain to remember this conversation. :P
> 
> <shrug> I had figured xfs_fsr == "polished user program not to be
> cluttered up with weird xfstests warts" and xfs_io == "warty program we
> use to make raw calls for testing" so except for tests that check the
> behavior of xfs_fsr itself, there ought to be a raw interface via xfs_io
> that regression tests use directly. :)
> 

Yep. I thought about adding an input file param or some such to xfs_fsr
for about 3 seconds or so, then came to the same conclusion. ;P

Brian

> --D
> 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > Dave.
> > -- 
> > Dave Chinner
> > david@fromorbit.com
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html