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:	Wed, 20 Jun 2012 09:12:52 +1000
From:	Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
To:	Spelic <spelic@...ftmail.org>
Cc:	Mike Snitzer <snitzer@...hat.com>,
	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 Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 11:37:54PM +0200, Spelic wrote:
> On 06/19/12 22:06, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 02:48:59PM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> >>On Tue, Jun 19 2012 at 10:44am -0400,
> >>Mike Snitzer<snitzer@...hat.com>  wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Tue, Jun 19 2012 at  9:52am -0400,
> >>>Spelic<spelic@...ftmail.org>  wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>I do not know what is the mechanism for which xfs cannot unmap
> >>>>blocks from dm-thin, but it really can't.
> >>>>If anyone has dm-thin installed he can try. This is 100%
> >>>>reproducible for me.
> >>>I was initially surprised by this considering the thinp-test-suite does
> >>>test a compilebench workload against xfs and ext4 using online discard
> >>>(-o discard).
> >>>
> >>>But I just modified that test to use a thin-pool with 'ignore_discard'
> >>>and the test still passed on both ext4 and xfs.
> >>>
> >>>So there is more work needed in the thinp-test-suite to use blktrace
> >>>hooks to verify that discards are occuring when the compilebench
> >>>generated files are removed.
> >>>
> >>>I'll work through that and report back.
> >>blktrace shows discards for both xfs and ext4.
> >>
> >>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.
> >
> >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...
> >
> 
> Could it be that the thin blocksize is larger than the discard
> granularity by xfs so nothing ever gets unmapped?

for -o discard, possibly. for fstrim, unlikely.

> I have tried thin pools with the default blocksize (64k afair with
> lvm2) and 1MB.
> HOWEVER I also have tried fstrim on xfs, and that is also not
> capable to unmap things from the dm-thin.
> What is the granularity with fstrim in xfs?

Whatever granularity you passed fstrim. You need to run an event
trace on XFS to find out if it is issuing discards before going
any further..

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@...morbit.com
--
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