[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [dm-devel] Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard



On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 01:47:43PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 20 2012 at  6:53pm -0400,
> Dave Chinner <david fromorbit com> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 02:11:31PM +0200, Spelic wrote:
> > > Ok guys, I think I found the bug. One or more bugs.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Pool has chunksize 1MB.
> > > In sysfs the thin volume has: queue/discard_max_bytes and
> > > queue/discard_granularity are 1048576 .
> > > And it has discard_alignment = 0, which based on sysfs-block
> > > documentation is correct (a less misleading name would have been
> > > discard_offset imho).
> > > Here is the blktrace from ext4 fstrim:
> > > ...
> > > 252,9   17      498     0.030466556   841  Q   D 19898368 + 2048 [fstrim]
> > > 252,9   17      499     0.030467501   841  Q   D 19900416 + 2048 [fstrim]
> > > 252,9   17      500     0.030468359   841  Q   D 19902464 + 2048 [fstrim]
....
> > > Here is the blktrace from xfs fstrim:
> > > 252,12  16        1     0.000000000   554  Q   D 96 + 2048 [fstrim]
> > > 252,12  16        2     0.000010149   554  Q   D 2144 + 2048 [fstrim]
> > > 252,12  16        3     0.000011349   554  Q   D 4192 + 2048 [fstrim]
.....
> > It looks like blkdev_issue_discard() has reduced each discard to
> > bios of a single "granule" (1MB), and not aligned them, hence they
> > are ignore by dm-thinp.
> > 
> > what are the discard parameters exposed by dm-thinp in
> > /sys/block/<thinp-blkdev>/queue/discard*
> > 
> > It looks to me that dmthinp might be setting discard_max_bytes to
> > 1MB rather than discard_granularity. Looking at dm-thin.c:
> > 
> > static void set_discard_limits(struct pool *pool, struct queue_limits *limits)
> > {
> >         /*
> >          * FIXME: these limits may be incompatible with the pool's data device
> >          */
> >         limits->max_discard_sectors = pool->sectors_per_block;
> > 
> >         /*
> >          * This is just a hint, and not enforced.  We have to cope with
> >          * bios that overlap 2 blocks.
> >          */
> >         limits->discard_granularity = pool->sectors_per_block << SECTOR_SHIFT;
> >         limits->discard_zeroes_data = pool->pf.zero_new_blocks;
> > }
> > 
> > 
> > Yes - discard_max_bytes == discard_granularity, and so
> > blkdev_issue_discard fails to align the request properly. As it is,
> > setting discard_max_bytes to the thinp block size is silly - it
> > means you'll never get range requests, and we sent a discard for
> > every single block in a range rather than having the thinp code
> > iterate over a range itself.
> 
> So 2 different issues:
> 1) blkdev_issue_discard isn't properly aligning
> 2) thinp should accept larger discards (up to the stacked
>    discard_max_bytes rather than setting an override)

Yes, in effect, but there's no real reason I can see why thinp can't
accept large discard requests than the underlying stack and break
them up appropriately itself....

> > i.e. this is not a filesystem bug that is causing the problem....
> 
> Paolo Bonzini fixed blkdev_issue_discard to properly align some time
> ago; unfortunately the patches slipped through the cracks (cc'ing Paolo,
> Jens, and Christoph).
> 
> Here are references to Paolo's patches:
> 0/2 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/14/323
> 1/2 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/14/324
> 2/2 https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/14/325
> 
> Patch 2/2 specifically addresses the case where:
>  discard_max_bytes == discard_granularity 
> 
> Paolo, any chance you could resend to Jens (maybe with hch's comments on
> patch#2 accounted for)?  Also, please add hch's Reviewed-by when
> reposting.
> 
> (would love to see this fixed for 3.5-rcX but if not 3.6 it is?)

That would be good...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david fromorbit com


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]