Message-ID: <4E4940D0.8090806@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:	Mon, 15 Aug 2011 08:52:48 -0700
From:	Allison Henderson <achender@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: add discard support for loop devices

On 08/11/2011 04:56 AM, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Lukas Czerner wrote:
>
>> This commit adds discard support for loop devices. Discard is usually
>> supported by SSD and thinly provisioned devices as a method for
>> reclaiming unused space. This is no different than trying to reclaim
>> back space which is not used by the file system on the image, but it
>> still occupies space on the host file system.
>>
>> We can do the reclamation on file system which does support hole
>> punching. So when discard request gets to the loop driver we can
>> translate that to punch a hole to the underlying file, hence reclaim
>> the free space.
>>
>> This is very useful for trimming down the size of the image to only what
>> is really used by the file system on that image. Fstrim may be used for
>> that purpose.
>>
>> It has been tested on ext4, xfs and btrfs with the image file systems
>> ext4, ext3, xfs and btrfs. ext4, or ext6 image on ext4 file system has
>> some problems but it seems that ext4 punch hole implementation is
>> somewhat flawed and it is unrelated to this commit.
>>
>> Also this is a very good method of validating file systems punch hole
>> implementation.
>>
>> Note that when encryption is used, discard support is disabled, because
>> using it might leak some information useful for possible attacker.
>
> Hi Allison,
>
> as I mentioned in the commit description I believe that I have
> seen problems with punch hole implementation. You can apply the
> commit to add discard support for loop device and then here is how
> to reproduce the problem:
>
>
> # mkfs.ext4 /dev/sdd
> # mount /dev/sdd /mnt/test
> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/test/bigfil2 bs=4096 seek=100M count=1
> # mkfs.ext4 /mnt/test/bigfil2
> # mount -o loop /mnt/test/bigfil2 /mnt/test3/
> # fstrim -v /mnt/test3/
> 422650347520 Bytes were trimmed
>
> # fsck.ext4 -fn /mnt/test1/bigfil2
> e2fsck 1.41.12 (17-May-2010)
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Pass 2: Checking directory structure
> Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
> Pass 4: Checking reference counts
> Pass 5: Checking group summary information
> Block bitmap differences:  +(524288--532511)
> Fix? no
>
> Free blocks count wrong for group #16 (24544, counted=32768).
> Fix? no
>
> Free blocks count wrong (103161576, counted=103169800).
> Fix? no
>
>
> /mnt/test1/bigfil2: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors
> **********
>
> /mnt/test1/bigfil2: 11/26214400 files (0.0% non-contiguous),
> 1696024/104857600 blocks
>
> And we also get corrupted file system on the ext3 image. I did
> not saw that for other file systems, but it is probably just the matter
> of how are blocks laid out in the file system format and there are more
> chunks of free blocks in ext[43] than xfs, or btrfs.
>
> Also you can find fstrim in latest util-inux-ng. And lastly I believe
> that this is great way to validate punch hole implementation. Just
> create an image on ext4 file system and run xfstest 251 (or stress.sh -
> oss.oracle.com/~mason/stress.sh) on it the image mounted with -o
> discard.
>
> Thanks!
> -Lukas


Hi Lukas,

Alrighty I will look into this one.  I have some punch hole bugs that I 
am working on now, so I will see if I can fold in some fixes for this 
bug too.  Thx for finding it for me!  :)

Allison Henderson
--
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

Powered by blists - more mailing lists