From: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: xfs speculative preallocation -- fragmentation issue with sparse file handling?
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:29:02 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5122B93E.7060702@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51229C21.4040102@sgi.com>
On 02/18/2013 04:24 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 02/18/13 15:08, Brian Foster wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> I was running a sanity check of my quota throttling stuff rebased
>> against the updated speculative prealloc algorithm:
>>
>> a1e16c26 xfs: limit speculative prealloc size on sparse files
>>
>> ... and ran into an interesting behavior on my baseline test (quota
>> disabled).
>>
>> The test I'm running is a concurrent write of 32 files (10GB each) via
>> iozone (I'm not testing performance, just using it as a concurrent
>> writer):
>>
>> iozone -w -c -e -i 0 -+n -r 4k -s 10g -t 32 -F /mnt/data/file{0..31}
>>
>> ... what I noticed is that from monitoring du during the test,
>> speculative preallocation seemed to be ineffective. From further
>> tracing, I observed that imap[0].br_blockcount in
>> xfs_iomap_eof_prealloc_initial_size() was fairly consistently maxed out
>> at around 32768 blocks (128MB).
>>
>> Without the aforementioned commit, preallocation occurs as expected and
>> the files result in 7-9 extents after the test. With the commit, I'm in
>> the 70s to 80s range of number of extents with a max extent size of
>> 128MB. A couple examples of xfs_bmap output are appended to this
>> message. It seems like initial fragmentation might be throwing the
>> algorithm out of whack..?
>>
>> Brian
>
> ... the patched version increases in doubles
>
> + if (imap[0].br_startblock == HOLESTARTBLOCK)
> + return 0;
>
> vvvvvv
> + if (imap[0].br_blockcount <= (MAXEXTLEN >> 1))
> + return imap[0].br_blockcount;
> ^^^^^^
>
> + return XFS_B_TO_FSB(mp, XFS_ISIZE(ip));
> +}
>
> have you experimented without the middle if statement.
> If I remember correctly when I reviewed the code, that should be moving
> code closer to the original code; namely use the file size as the
> preallocation value.
>
Just a quick update...
I've tested the change above and a suggestion Dave made on IRC to return
(imap[0].br_blockcount << 1) and both resolve the immediate issue. I
need to verify the original test case still works and I'll post a patch.
Thanks...
Brian
> --Mark.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-02-18 23:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-02-18 21:08 xfs speculative preallocation -- fragmentation issue with sparse file handling? Brian Foster
2013-02-18 21:24 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-02-18 23:29 ` Brian Foster [this message]
2013-02-18 23:39 ` Dave Chinner
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=5122B93E.7060702@redhat.com \
--to=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=dchinner@redhat.com \
--cc=tinguely@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