[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240531150016.GL52987@frogsfrogsfrogs>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 08:00:16 -0700
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...weicloud.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
brauner@...nel.org, david@...morbit.com, chandanbabu@...nel.org,
jack@...e.cz, willy@...radead.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
chengzhihao1@...wei.com, yukuai3@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 8/8] xfs: improve truncate on a realtime inode
with huge extsize
On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 07:15:34AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, May 31, 2024 at 07:12:10AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > There are <cough> some users that want 1G extents.
> >
> > For the rest of us who don't live in the stratosphere, it's convenient
> > for fsdax to have rt extents that match the PMD size, which could be
> > large on arm64 (e.g. 512M, or two smr sectors).
>
> That's fine. Maybe to rephrase my question. With this series we
> have 3 different truncate path:
>
> 1) unmap all blocks (!rt || rtextsizse == 1)
> 2) zero leftover blocks in an rtextent (small rtextsize, but > 1)
> 3) converted leftover block in an rtextent to unwritten (large
> rtextsize)
>
> What is the right threshold to switch between 2 and 3? And do we
> really need 2) at all?
I don't think we need (2) at all.
There's likely some threshold below where it's a wash -- compare with
ext4 strategy of trying to write 64k chunks even if that requires
zeroing pagecache to cut down on fragmentation on hdds -- but I don't
know if we care anymore. ;)
--D
Powered by blists - more mailing lists