public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@oracle.com>,
	Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] xfs: only free posteof blocks on first close
Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:46:21 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240624154621.GK3058325@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240623053532.857496-8-hch@lst.de>

On Sun, Jun 23, 2024 at 07:34:52AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
> 
> Certain workloads fragment files on XFS very badly, such as a software
> package that creates a number of threads, each of which repeatedly run
> the sequence: open a file, perform a synchronous write, and close the
> file, which defeats the speculative preallocation mechanism.  We work
> around this problem by only deleting posteof blocks the /first/ time a
> file is closed to preserve the behavior that unpacking a tarball lays
> out files one after the other with no gaps.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org>
> [hch: rebased, updated comment, renamed the flag]
> Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Someone please review this?  The last person to try was Dave, five years
ago, and I do not know if he ever saw what it did to various workloads.

https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20190315034237.GL23020@dastard/

--D

> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_file.c  | 32 +++++++++++---------------------
>  fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h |  4 ++--
>  2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> index 8d70171678fe24..de52aceabebc27 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> @@ -1215,15 +1215,21 @@ xfs_file_release(
>  	 * exposed to that problem.
>  	 */
>  	if (xfs_iflags_test_and_clear(ip, XFS_ITRUNCATED)) {
> -		xfs_iflags_clear(ip, XFS_IDIRTY_RELEASE);
> +		xfs_iflags_clear(ip, XFS_EOFBLOCKS_RELEASED);
>  		if (ip->i_delayed_blks > 0)
>  			filemap_flush(inode->i_mapping);
>  	}
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * XFS aggressively preallocates post-EOF space to generate contiguous
> -	 * allocations for writers that append to the end of the file and we
> -	 * try to free these when an open file context is released.
> +	 * allocations for writers that append to the end of the file.
> +	 *
> +	 * To support workloads that close and reopen the file frequently, these
> +	 * preallocations usually persist after a close unless it is the first
> +	 * close for the inode.  This is a tradeoff to generate tightly packed
> +	 * data layouts for unpacking tarballs or similar archives that write
> +	 * one file after another without going back to it while keeping the
> +	 * preallocation for files that have recurring open/write/close cycles.
>  	 *
>  	 * There is no point in freeing blocks here for open but unlinked files
>  	 * as they will be taken care of by the inactivation path soon.
> @@ -1241,25 +1247,9 @@ xfs_file_release(
>  	    (file->f_mode & FMODE_WRITE) &&
>  	    xfs_ilock_nowait(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL)) {
>  		if (xfs_can_free_eofblocks(ip) &&
> -		    !xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_IDIRTY_RELEASE)) {
> -			/*
> -			 * Check if the inode is being opened, written and
> -			 * closed frequently and we have delayed allocation
> -			 * blocks outstanding (e.g. streaming writes from the
> -			 * NFS server), truncating the blocks past EOF will
> -			 * cause fragmentation to occur.
> -			 *
> -			 * In this case don't do the truncation, but we have to
> -			 * be careful how we detect this case. Blocks beyond EOF
> -			 * show up as i_delayed_blks even when the inode is
> -			 * clean, so we need to truncate them away first before
> -			 * checking for a dirty release. Hence on the first
> -			 * dirty close we will still remove the speculative
> -			 * allocation, but after that we will leave it in place.
> -			 */
> +		    !xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_EOFBLOCKS_RELEASED)) {
>  			xfs_free_eofblocks(ip);
> -			if (ip->i_delayed_blks)
> -				xfs_iflags_set(ip, XFS_IDIRTY_RELEASE);
> +			xfs_iflags_set(ip, XFS_EOFBLOCKS_RELEASED);
>  		}
>  		xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_EXCL);
>  	}
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> index ae9851226f9913..548a4f00bcae1b 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode.h
> @@ -336,7 +336,7 @@ static inline bool xfs_inode_has_bigrtalloc(struct xfs_inode *ip)
>  #define XFS_INEW		(1 << 3) /* inode has just been allocated */
>  #define XFS_IPRESERVE_DM_FIELDS	(1 << 4) /* has legacy DMAPI fields set */
>  #define XFS_ITRUNCATED		(1 << 5) /* truncated down so flush-on-close */
> -#define XFS_IDIRTY_RELEASE	(1 << 6) /* dirty release already seen */
> +#define XFS_EOFBLOCKS_RELEASED	(1 << 6) /* eofblocks were freed in ->release */
>  #define XFS_IFLUSHING		(1 << 7) /* inode is being flushed */
>  #define __XFS_IPINNED_BIT	8	 /* wakeup key for zero pin count */
>  #define XFS_IPINNED		(1 << __XFS_IPINNED_BIT)
> @@ -383,7 +383,7 @@ static inline bool xfs_inode_has_bigrtalloc(struct xfs_inode *ip)
>   */
>  #define XFS_IRECLAIM_RESET_FLAGS	\
>  	(XFS_IRECLAIMABLE | XFS_IRECLAIM | \
> -	 XFS_IDIRTY_RELEASE | XFS_ITRUNCATED | XFS_NEED_INACTIVE | \
> +	 XFS_EOFBLOCKS_RELEASED | XFS_ITRUNCATED | XFS_NEED_INACTIVE | \
>  	 XFS_INACTIVATING | XFS_IQUOTAUNCHECKED)
>  
>  /*
> -- 
> 2.43.0
> 
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2024-06-24 15:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-06-23  5:34 post-EOF block handling revamp Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 01/10] xfs: fix freeing speculative preallocations for preallocated files Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:30   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 02/10] xfs: remove the i_mode check in xfs_release Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:34   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-24 15:50     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-07 15:01       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 03/10] xfs: refactor f_op->release handling Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:35   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 04/10] xfs: don't bother returning errors from xfs_file_release Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:39   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-24 15:51     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-08-07 14:59       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 05/10] xfs: skip all of xfs_file_release when shut down Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:41   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 06/10] xfs: don't free post-EOF blocks on read close Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:43   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 07/10] xfs: only free posteof blocks on first close Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:46   ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2024-06-24 16:08     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 16:49       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 08/10] xfs: check XFS_IDIRTY_RELEASE earlier in xfs_release_eofblocks Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:50   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-24 15:54     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 09/10] xfs: simplify extent lookup in xfs_can_free_eofblocks Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:51   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-23  5:34 ` [PATCH 10/10] xfs: reclaim speculative preallocations for append only files Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 15:54   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-24 16:07     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 17:06       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-06-24 17:22         ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-06-24 18:44           ` 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=20240624154621.GK3058325@frogsfrogsfrogs \
    --to=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=chandan.babu@oracle.com \
    --cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --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