linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add batched discard support for ext4.

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1004261957001.29999@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:14:34 +0200 (CEST)
From:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To:	Ric Wheeler <rwheeler@...hat.com>
cc:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@...il.com>,
	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
	Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
	Mark Lord <kernel@...savvy.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	Edward Shishkin <eshishki@...hat.com>,
	Eric Sandeen <esandeen@...hat.com>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] Add batched discard support for ext4.

On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Ric Wheeler wrote:

> On 04/26/2010 01:46 PM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010, Jan Kara wrote:
> > 
> > > > On Wed, 21 Apr 2010, Greg Freemyer wrote:
> > > > And also, currently I am rewriting the patch do use rbtree instead of
> > > > the
> > > > bitmap, because there were some concerns of memory consumption. It is a
> > > > question whether or not the rbtree will be more memory friendly.
> > > > Generally I think that in most "normal" cases it will, but there are
> > > > some
> > > > extreme scenarios, where the rbtree will be much worse. Any comment on
> > > > this ?
> > >    I see two possible improvements here:
> > > a) At a cost of some code complexity, you can bound the worst case by
> > > combining
> > > RB-trees with bitmaps. The basic idea is that when space to TRIM gets too
> > > fragmented (memory to keep to-TRIM blocks in RB-tree for a given group
> > > exceeds
> > > the memory needed to keep it in a bitmap), you convert RB-tree for a
> > > problematic group to a bitmap and attach it to an appropriate RB-node. If
> > > you
> > > track with a bitmap also a number of to-TRIM extents in the bitmap, you
> > > can
> > > also decide whether it's benefitial to switch back to an RB-tree.
> > 
> > This sounds like a good idea, but I wonder if it is worth it :
> >   1. The tree will have very short life, because with next ioctl all
> >   stored deleted extents will be trimmed and removed from the tree.
> >   2. Also note, that the longer it lives the less fragmented it possibly
> >   became.
> >   3. I do not expect, that deleted ranges can be too fragmented, and
> >   even if it is, it will be probably merged into one big extent very
> >   soon.
> > 
> > > 
> > > b) Another idea might be: When to-TRIM space is fragmented (again, let's
> > > say
> > > in some block group), there's not much point in sending tiny trim commands
> > > anyway (at least that's what I've understood from this discussion). So you
> > > might as well stop maintaining information which blocks we need to trim
> > > for that group. When the situation gets better, you can always walk block
> > > bitmap and issue trim commands. You might even trigger this rescan from
> > > kernel - if you'd maintain number of free block extents for each block
> > > group
> > > (which is rather easy), you could trigger the bitmap rescan and trim as
> > > soon
> > > as ratio number of free blocks / number of extents gets above a reasonable
> > > threshold.
> > > 
> > > 								Honza
> > > 
> > 
> > In what I am preparing now, I simple ignore small extents, which would
> > be created by splitting the deleted extent into smaller pieces by chunks
> > of used blocks. This, in my opinion, will prevent the fragmentation,
> > which otherwise may occur in the longer term (between ioctl calls).
> > 
> > Thanks for suggestions.
> > -Lukas
> 
> I am not convinced that ignoring small extents is a good idea. Remember that
> for SSD's specifically, they remap *everything* internally so our
> "fragmentation" set of small spaces could be useful for them.
> 
> That does not mean that we should not try to send larger requests down to the
> target device which is always a good idea I think :-)
> 
> ric
> 

That's right, so the other approach would be probably better. Merge
small extents together into one, but there must be some limit, because I
do not want two little extents at the beginning and the end of the group
to force trimming whole group. The whole rbtree thing gets a little
complicated :)

-Lukas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html