xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 2/4] large-fs: improve space diversification for ext4

To: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] large-fs: improve space diversification for ext4
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 11:10:12 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1373367918-7516-2-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1373367918-7516-1-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> <1373367918-7516-2-git-send-email-dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 03:05:16PM +0400, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> Currently we allocated several giant files one by one until limit,
> so empty space is located as one chunk which limit code-path coverage.
> This patch consume all space with NUM_SPACE_FILES files (by default 1024)
> each has same size, and when truncate each one by required delta.
> As result we have $NUM_SPACE_FILES chunks of free blocks distributed
> across whole filesystem.
> This should help us to avoid regressions similar to e7c9e3e99adf6c49

Sounds like a good idea - distributing free space around the
filesystem - but why limit this to ext4?  If you turn this into a
generic "largefs fill space" function, it will work just as well
with XFS as it does for ext4, and with any other filesystem that we
want to support --largefs testing on....

I'd also add a CLI option to check to set NUM_SPACE_FILES like we
do for LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV and SCRATCH_DEV_EMPTY_SPACE. I'd probably
also call it SCRATCH_DEV_EMPTY_SPACE_FILES....

> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>  common/rc |   40 ++++++++++++++++------------------------
>  1 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc
> index c44acea..902fc19 100644
> --- a/common/rc
> +++ b/common/rc
> @@ -440,12 +440,17 @@ _setup_large_ext4_fs()
>       fs_empty_space=$((50*1024*1024*1024))
>  
>       [ "$LARGE_SCRATCH_DEV" != yes ] && return 0
> +     [ -z "$NUM_SPACE_FILES" ] && export NUM_SPACE_FILES=1024
>       [ -z "$SCRATCH_DEV_EMPTY_SPACE" ] && SCRATCH_DEV_EMPTY_SPACE=0  
>       fs_empty_space=$((fs_empty_space + $SCRATCH_DEV_EMPTY_SPACE))
>       [ $fs_empty_space -ge $fs_size ] && return 0
>  
>       # calculate the size of the file we need to allocate.
> +
>       space_to_consume=$(($fs_size - $fs_empty_space))
> +     file_size_falloc=$(($fs_size/$NUM_SPACE_FILES))
> +     file_size_final=$(($space_to_consume/$NUM_SPACE_FILES))

spaces around "/"

> +
>       # mount the filesystem and create 16TB - 4KB files until we consume
>       # all the necessary space.
>       _scratch_mount 2>&1 >$tmp_dir/mnt.err
> @@ -457,33 +462,20 @@ _setup_large_ext4_fs()
>               return $status
>       fi
>       rm -f $tmp_dir/mnt.err
> -
> -     file_size=$((16*1024*1024*1024*1024 - 4096))
> -     nfiles=0
> -     while [ $space_to_consume -gt $file_size ]; do
> -
> +     mkdir $SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space
> +     # Consume all space on filesytem
> +     for ((nfiles = 0; nfiles < nfiles_total; nfiles++)); do 

Is that bashism supported on older versions of bash? i.e. like the
versions found on RHEL5, SLES10, etc? If not, then a simple:

        for nfiles in `seq 0 1 $nfiles_total`; do

will work just as well....

>               xfs_io -F -f \

change that to XFS_IO_PROG and we can drop the -F there.

> -                     -c "truncate $file_size" \
> -                     -c "falloc -k 0 $file_size" \
> -                     $SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space.$nfiles 2>&1
> -             status=$?
> -             if [ $status -ne 0 ]; then
> -                     break;
> -             fi
> -
> -             space_to_consume=$(( $space_to_consume - $file_size ))
> -             nfiles=$(($nfiles + 1))
> +                     -c "truncate $file_size_falloc" \
> +                     -c "falloc -k 0 $file_size_falloc" \
> +                     $SCRATCH_MNT/.use_space/use_space.$nfiles 2>&1

Is there any need for the truncate + falloc -k? I can't remember why
I did that in the first place. Just a "falloc 0 $file_size_falloc"
shoul dbe sufficient, right?

>       done
> -
> -     # consume the remaining space.
> -     if [ $space_to_consume -gt 0 ]; then
> +     # Truncate files to smaller size, will free chunks of space
> +     for ((nfiles = 0; nfiles < nfiles_total; nfiles++)); do 
>               xfs_io -F -f \

Same again for XFS_IO_PROG.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>