linux-ext4 - Re: Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard

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]

Date:	Tue, 19 Jun 2012 16:21:30 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>, Spelic <spelic@...ftmail.org>,
	Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
	device-mapper development <dm-devel@...hat.com>,
	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, xfs@....sgi.com
Subject: Re: Ext4 and xfs problems in dm-thin on allocation and discard

On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 06:06:31AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > But in general xfs is issuing discards with much smaller extents than
> > ext4 does, e.g.:
> 
> THat's normal when you use -o discard - XFS sends extremely
> fine-grained discards as the have to be issued during the checkpoint
> commit that frees the extent. Hence they can't be aggregated like is
> done in ext4.

Actually, ext4 is also sending the discards during (well, actually,
after) the commit which frees the extent/inode.  We do aggregate them
while the commit is open, but once the transaction is committed, we
send out the discards.  I suspect the difference is in the granularity
of the transactions between ext4 and xfs.

> As it is, no-one really should be using -o discard - it is extremely
> inefficient compared to a background fstrim run given that discards
> are unqueued, blocking IOs. It's just a bad idea until the lower
> layers get fixed to allow asynchronous, vectored discards and SATA
> supports queued discards...

What Dave said.  :-) This is true for both ext4 and xfs.

As a result, I can very easily see there being a distinction made
between when we *do* want to pass the discards all the way down to the
device, and when we only want the thinp layer to process them ---
because for current devices, sending discards down to the physical
device is very heavyweight.

I'm not sure how we could do this without a nasty layering violation,
but some way in which we could label fstrim discards versus "we've
committed the unlink/truncate and so thinp can feel free to reuse
these blocks" discards would be interesting to consider.

     	  	     	     	      - Ted
--
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