From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: defer online discard submission to a workqueue
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2018 10:46:09 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181109154608.GB5572@bfoster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181109150610.GB9153@infradead.org>
On Fri, Nov 09, 2018 at 07:06:10AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 06, 2018 at 09:23:11AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > My
> > understanding is that these discards can stack up and take enough time
> > that a limit on outstanding discards is required, which now that I think
> > of it makes me somewhat skeptical of the whole serial execution thing.
> > Hitting that outstanding discard request limit is what bubbles up the
> > stack and affects XFS by holding up log forces, since new discard
> > submissions are presumably blocked on completion of the oldest
> > outstanding request.
>
> We don't do strict ordering or request, but eventually requests
> waiting for completion will block others from being submitted.
>
Ok, that's kind of what I expected.
> > I'm not quite sure what happens in the block layer if that limit were
> > lifted. Perhaps it assumes throttling responsibility directly via
> > queues/plugs? I'd guess that at minimum we'd end up blocking indirectly
> > somewhere (via memory allocation pressure?) anyways, so ISTM that some
> > kind of throttling is inevitable in this situation. What am I missing?
>
> We'll still block new allocations waiting for these blocks and
> other bits. Or to put it another way - if your discard implementation
> is slow (independent of synchronous or not) your are going to be in
> a world of pain with online discard. That is what it's not default
> to start with.
Sure, it's not really the XFS bits I was asking about here. This is
certainly not a high priority and not a common use case. We're working
through some of the other issues in the other sub-thread. In particular,
I'm wondering if we can provide broader improvements to the overall
mechanism to reduce some of that pain.
Brian
prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-11-10 1:27 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-11-05 18:10 [PATCH] xfs: defer online discard submission to a workqueue Brian Foster
2018-11-05 21:51 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-05 22:20 ` Eric Sandeen
2018-11-09 15:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-06 14:23 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-06 21:18 ` Dave Chinner
2018-11-07 13:42 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-08 0:38 ` Dave Chinner
2018-11-08 13:50 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-09 0:20 ` Dave Chinner
2018-11-09 15:23 ` Brian Foster
2018-11-09 15:06 ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-11-09 15:46 ` Brian Foster [this message]
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=20181109154608.GB5572@bfoster \
--to=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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).