Message-ID: <CAH9JG2XgGLO1EBhLT9RVXMjLmnmFcK9ULwMcsnkSjQwg97cpcw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 Jul 2011 09:26:42 +0900
From:	Kyungmin Park <kmpark@...radead.org>
To:	Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Filesystem Mailing List <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: ext4: why init the unused block group at batched discard?

On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 11:41 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Jul 2011, Kyungmin Park wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 6:24 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2011, Kyungmin Park wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hi Lukas,
>> >>
>> >> During code review batched discard support at ext4. I wonder why do
>> >> you init the uninitialized block group during batched discard.
>> >> As you know uninitialized block group mean that there's no operation
>> >> at these blocks.
>> >> So no need to trim it at all.
>> >
>> > What you're describing is another flag, namely EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT,
>> > which tells us that there was no allocation from that block bitmap since
>> > the mkfs (as Amir already pointed out). Flag
>> > EXT4_GROUP_INFO_NEED_INIT_BIT simply states that there is no buddy
>> > initialized for this group.
>> >
>> > That said the code is perfectly fine, and it should not affect even the
>> > e2fsck which uses EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT to skip not used block groups
>> > since we only change it on allocations.
>> >
>> > It is true that after the commit
>> > 78944086663e6c1b03f3d60bf7610128149be5fc ext4: only load buddy bitmap in
>> > ext4_trim_fs() when it is needed
>> > we do not longer need to initialize the buddy right away, but wait ontil
>> > it is really needed. Actually we do not need it at all, because is when
>> > we are going to load the buddy the ext4_mb_load_buddy() will check for
>> > the EXT4_GROUP_INFO_NEED_INIT_BIT and will initialize the buddy for us.
>> >
>> > Yongqiang pointed out that we might use EXT4_BG_BLOCK_UNINIT to skip
>> > group as well, but I do not think that it is a good idea, since the
>> > initial discard at mkfs time might not be done (we just do not know it),
>> > so any assumption like this are not right. Moreover there are patches
>> > from Tao Ma which adds the code for skipping groups which has not been
>> > freed from since the last fitrim call. Search the list for [PATCH 0/4
>> > RESEND]  ext4 trim bug fixes and improvement.
>>
>> Thank you for all kind explanations.
>>
>> Another consideration is that even though batched discard has little
>> overhead it's not good idea trim it all unused blocks at one time.
>> since disk used blocks doesn't increased in normal case.
>> So how about to remember the last allocated block group and trim it
>> until this block group?
>
> Yes, this problem is addressed by patches from Tao as mentioned above,
> however it is still waiting for merge.
Can you let me know the link?

Thank you,
Kyungmin Park
>
>>
>> To reduce the trim time. I also consider the divide the block groups
>> as several trim area e.g., 1 GiB and trim it sequentially.
>
> I am not sure what do you mean. In ext4 allocation groups has a lot
> smaller sizes (128M for 4k block size) than 1G. Also you can specify
> that you do want to discard just a part of the filesystem, but you
> probably did notice that in review, right ?
>
> Thanks!
> -Lukas
>
>>
>> These are based on the assumption, eMMC has small resource relatively
>> SSD and no need to trim it at one time.
>>
>> Thank you,
>> Kyungmin Park
>>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists