Message-ID: <e00bac5d-5b6c-4763-8a76-e128f34dee12@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 14:08:30 +0000
From: John Garry <john.g.garry@...cle.com>
To: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: lsf-pc@...ts.linux-foundation.org, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, djwong@...nel.org, dchinner@...hat.com,
        hch@....de, ritesh.list@...il.com, jack@...e.cz, tytso@....edu,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [LSF/MM/BPF TOPIC] extsize and forcealign design in filesystems
 for atomic writes

On 29/01/2025 16:06, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 08:59:15AM +0000, John Garry wrote:
>> On 29/01/2025 07:06, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
>>
>> Hi Ojaswin,
>>
>>>
>>> I would like to submit a proposal to discuss the design of extsize and
>>> forcealign and various open questions around it.
>>>
>>>    ** Background **
>>>
>>> Modern NVMe/SCSI disks with atomic write capabilities can allow writes to a
>>> multi-KB range on disk to go atomically. This feature has a wide variety of use
>>> cases especially for databases like mysql and postgres that can leverage atomic
>>> writes to gain significant performance. However, in order to enable atomic
>>> writes on Linux, the underlying disk may have some size and alignment
>>> constraints that the upper layers like filesystems should follow. extsize with
>>> forcealign is one of the ways filesystems can make sure the IO submitted to the
>>> disk adheres to the atomic writes constraints.
>>>
>>> extsize is a hint to the FS to allocate extents at a certian logical alignment
>>> and size. forcealign builds on this by forcing the allocator to enforce the
>>> alignment guarantees for physical blocks as well, which is essential for atomic
>>> writes.
>>>
>>>    ** Points of discussion **
>>>
>>> Extsize hints feature is already supported by XFS [1] with forcealign still
>>> under development and discussion [2].
>>
>> From
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20241212013433.GC6678@frogsfrogsfrogs/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!IuMiPMbR5L3B8f31W8tbRlB7d0dMLg2nxW8k7KOGF3t031T99wahnbwnIeDn6N3AdveQJvmbL4V_FBwB0T9U9Q$
>> thread, the alternate solution to forcealign for XFS is to use a
>> software-emulated fallback for unaligned atomic writes. I am looking at a
>> PoC implementation now. Note that this does rely on CoW.
>>
>> There has been push back on forcealign for XFS, so we need to prove/disprove
>> that this software-emulated fallback can work, see
>> https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20240924061719.GA11211@lst.de/__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!IuMiPMbR5L3B8f31W8tbRlB7d0dMLg2nxW8k7KOGF3t031T99wahnbwnIeDn6N3AdveQJvmbL4V_FBwv-uf6Ig$
>>
> 
> Hey John,
> 
> Thanks for taking a look. I did go through the 2 series sometime back.
> I agree that there are some open challenges in getting the multi block
> atomic write interface correct especially for mixed mappings and this is
> one of the main reasons we want to explore the exchange_range fallback
> in case blocks are not aligned.

Right, so for XFS I am looking at a CoW-based fallback for 
unaligned/mixed mapping atomic writes. I have no idea on how this could 
work for ext4.

> 
> That being said, I believe forcealign as a feature still holds a lot
> of relevance as:
> 
> 1. Right now, it is the only way to guarantee aligned blocks and hence
>     gurantee that our atomic writes can always benefit from hardware atomic
>     write support. IIUC DBs are not very keen on losing out on performance
>     due to some writes going via the software fallback path.

Sure, we need performance figures for this first.

> 
> 2. Not all FSes support COW (major example being ext4) and hence it will
>     be very difficult to have a software fallback incase the blocks are
> 	 not aligned.

Understood

> 
> 3. As pointed out in [1], even with exchange_range there is still value
>     in having forcealign to find the new blocks to be exchanged.

Yeah, again, we need performance figures.

For my test case, I am trying 16K atomic writes with 4K FS block size, 
so I expect the software fallback to not kick in often after running the 
system for a while (as eventually we will get an aligned allocations). I 
am concerned of prospect of heavily fragmented files, though.

> 
> I agree that forcealign is not the only way we can have atomic writes
> work but I do feel there is value in having forcealign for FSes and
> hence we should have a discussion around it so we can get the interface
> right.
> 

I thought that the interface for forcealign according to the candidate 
xfs implementation was quite straightforward. no?

What was not clear was the age-old issue of how to issue an atomic write 
of mixed extents, which is really an atomic write issue.

> Just to be clear, the intention of this proposal is to mainly discuss
> forcealign as a feature. I am hoping there would be another different
> proposal to discuss atomic writes and the plethora of other open
> challenges there ;)

Thanks,
John

Powered by blists - more mailing lists