xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH RFC 00/18] xfs: sparse inode chunks

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/18] xfs: sparse inode chunks
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 11:25:40 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140729002650.GH26465@dastard>
References: <1406211788-63206-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140724223211.GQ20518@dastard> <20140725163056.GA3350@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140726000335.GE20518@dastard> <20140728121400.GB53501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140729002650.GH26465@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 10:26:50AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 08:14:01AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Sat, Jul 26, 2014 at 10:03:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 12:30:57PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > Hmm, I suppose that does create a new and interesting dynamic with
> > > > regard to the feature bit (non-deterministic backwards compatibility).
> > > > One could certainly value backwards compatibility over this particular
> > > > feature, and there is currently no way to control it. I'll look into
> > > > doing something with xfs_admin. In fact, I was thinking of adding
> > > > something to tune the cluster size bit to get around the v5 scaling
> > > > issue anyways.
> > > 
> > > What v5 scalability issue is that? I don't recall any outstanding
> > > issues with inode cluster IO....
> > > 
> > 
> > There's no scalability issue... I'm just referring to the fact that we
> > scale the cluster size by the inode size increase factor on v5
> > superblocks.
> > 
> > E.g., my free space fragmentation xfstests test started out with a fixed
> > file size based on something close to the worst case with an
> > implementation that used the allocation granularity of max(<holemask bit
> > granularity>, <inodes per block>). Once I tied the implementation to the
> > cluster size due to the aforementioned complexities, it became apparent
> > the test was less effective with my chosen file size on v5 supers,
> > particularly as the inode size increased. So from there I was
> > considering a similar xfs_admin command a user could run to reduce the
> > cluster size as a backstop should this limitation arise in the real
> > world. We can start with doing something just to enable the feature as
> > outlined above and revisit this then...
> 
> Right, but I'd suggest that the better long term solution to avoid
> the limitations of inode cluster buffer alignment issues is to get
> rid of inode clusters and inode buffers altogether. We only need
> inode buffers for logging unlinked list modifications, so once we
> log those as part of the inode core for for v5 filesystems then we
> can do much more dynamic inode IO. That then frees us up to do fine
> grained sparse inode allocation because we aren't limited by
> in-memory buffering limitations.
> 
> http://xfs.org/index.php/Improving_inode_Caching#Food_For_Thought_.28Crazy_Ideas.29
> 

Interesting, thanks. I guess removing the need for the code that's
incompatible with the sub-cluster size granularity is a nice option. :)
I'll have to read into this some more once the basic sparse inode
feature is more hashed out.

Brian

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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