xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [FAQ v2] XFS speculative preallocation

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [FAQ v2] XFS speculative preallocation
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2014 15:56:04 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5342F7AF.9040507@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20140407153906.GC48184@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5342F7AF.9040507@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 02:08:31PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 4/7/14, 10:39 AM, Brian Foster wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > This is v2 of the speculative preallocation FAQ bits. The initial
> > proposal was here:
> > 
> > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2014-03/msg00316.html
> > 
> > This version includes some updates based on review from arekm and
> > dchinner. Most notably, the content has been broken down into a few more
> > questions. Unless there are further major changes required, I'll plan to
> > post something along these lines to the wiki when my account is
> > approved. Thanks for the feedback!
> > 
> > Brian
> > 
> > ---
> > 
> > Q: Why do files on XFS use more data blocks than expected?
> > 
> > A:
> > 
> > The XFS speculative preallocation algorithm allocates extra blocks
> > beyond end of file (EOF) to minimise file fragmentation during buffered
> 
> s/minimise/minimize/
> 

Fixed.

> > write workloads. Workloads that benefit from this behaviour include
> > slowly growing files, concurrent writers and mixed reader/writer
> > workloads. It also provides fragmentation resistence in situations where
> 
> s/resistence/resistance/
> 

Fixed.

> > memory pressure prevents adequate buffering of dirty data to allow
> > formation of large contiguous regions of data in memory.
> > 
> > This post-EOF block allocation is accounted identically to blocks within
> > EOF. It is visible in 'st_blocks' counts via stat() system calls,
> > accounted as globally allocated space and against quotas that apply to
> > the associated file. The space is reported by various userspace
> > utilities (stat, du, df, ls) and thus provides a common source of
> > confusion for administrators. Post-EOF blocks are temporary in most
> > situations and are usually reclaimed via several possible mechanisms in
> > XFS.
> 
> "usually reclaimed" - is it ever "never" reclaimed, then?
> 

I worded it that way because of the several little corner cases that can
turn preallocations permanent. E.g., the extending truncate case and
IIRC, an fallocate on an inode means the space won't be trimmed either.

> > See the FAQ entry on speculative preallocation for details.
> > 
> > Q: What is speculative preallocation?
> > 
> > A:
> > 
> > XFS speculatively preallocates post-EOF blocks on file extending writes
> > in anticipation of future extending writes. The size of a preallocation
> > is dynamic and depends on the runtime state of the file and fs.
> > Generally speaking, preallocation is disabled for very small files and
> > preallocation sizes grow as files grow larger.
> > 
> > Preallocations are capped to the maximum extent size supported by the
> > filesystem. Preallocation size is throttled automatically as the
> > filesystem approaches low free space conditions or other allocation
> > limits on a file (such as a quota).
> >  
> > In most cases, speculative preallocation is automatically reclaimed when
> > a file is closed. Preallocation may also persist beyond the lifecycle of
> > the file descriptor. Certain application behaviors that are known to
> > cause fragmentation, such as file server workloads, slowly growing
> > files, etc., benefit from this and delay the removal of preallocated
> > blocks beyond fd close.
> 
> this is a little handwavy.  "It's reclaimed when it's closed, except
> when it's not?"  Can we say something more informative here?
> 

This used to say:

"In most cases, speculative preallocation is automatically reclaimed
when a file is closed. The preallocation may persist after file close if
an open, write, close pattern is repeated on a file. In this scenario,
post-EOF preallocation is trimmed once the inode is reclaimed from cache
or the filesystem unmounted."

The point I want to get it across here is simply that the default case
is to reclaim on close. The delayed reclaim scenario is the exception
based on a heuristic. How about this?

"In most cases, speculative preallocation is automatically reclaimed
when a file is closed. Applications that repeatedly trigger
preallocation and reclaim cycles (e.g., this is common in file server or
log file workloads) can cause fragmentation. Therefore, this pattern is
detected and causes the preallocation to persist beyond the lifecycle of
the file descriptor."

> > Q: How can I speed up or avoid delayed removal of speculative
> > preallocation?
> > 
> > A:
> > 
> > Remove the inode from the VFS cache or unmount the filesystem to remove
> > speculative preallocations associated with an inode.
> 
> How does a user remove an inode from the VFS cache?  ;)
> 
> So far the answer to this question sounds like "no."
> 
> We can't remove a single inode; drop_caches is way too heavy weight,
> and unmount isn't really viable in most cases.
> 

I guess there's a fine line between informing what mechanisms remove the
preallocations and what is potentially recommending people take
inappropriate actions to clear preallocated blocks. My initial intent
was to simply inform that the traditional post-eof preallocation is not
permanent (e.g. "don't worry, in the worst case this space is reclaimed
on inode reclaim or umount"). Given that and this is a user FAQ, I'm
sympathetic to nuking the "remove from cache" bit.

The answer to this question becomes "use the scanner" (as described
below) and the bits about reclaim/umount remain referenced indirectly in
the answer to the next question. Thoughts?

> > Linux 3.8 (and later) includes a scanner to perform background trimming
> > of files with lingering post-EOF preallocations. The scanner bypasses
> > dirty files to avoid interference with ongoing writes. A 5 minute scan
> > interval is used by default and can be adjusted via the following file
> > (value in seconds):
> > 
> >     /proc/sys/fs/xfs/speculative_prealloc_lifetime
> >
> > Q: Is speculative preallocation permanent?
> > 
> > A:
> > 
> > Although speculative preallocation can lead to reports of excess space
> > usage, the preallocated space is not permanent unless explicitly made so
> > via fallocate or a similar interface. Preallocated space can also be
> > encoded permanently in situations where file size is extended beyond a
> > range of post-EOF blocks (i.e., via truncate). Otherwise, preallocated
> 
> (maybe "an extending truncate")
> 

Ok. Thanks for the feedback.

Brian

> > blocks are reclaimed on file close, inode reclaim, unmount or in the
> > background once file write activity subsides.
> > 
> > Q: My workload has known characteristics - can I tune speculative
> > preallocation to an optimal fixed size?
> > 
> > A:
> > 
> > The 'allocsize=' mount option configures the XFS block allocation
> > algorithm to use a fixed allocation size. Speculative preallocation is
> > not dynamically resized when the allocsize mount option is set and thus
> > the potential for fragmentation is increased. XFS historically set
> > allocsize to 64k by default.
> 
> Thanks,
> -Eric
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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