xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: mkfs.xfs -n size=65536

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: mkfs.xfs -n size=65536
From: "Al Lau (alau2)" <alau2@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2015 03:42:01 +0000
Accept-language: en-US
Cc: "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@xxxxxxxxx; l=1631; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1444707736; x=1445917336; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=BwdYva1XM1xkg8scf2EI+hxpHldJ3j4UWNLOdJ5Pn80=; b=iSjPKgB9H9h+ljwT9NOJ8+E2LjFqc9jSAt6br6YhRBuF51o7HNfIUywg 0LnnQ29FXItTZ4NZuOt4sb975DIeM9hnK4LLx1vTvzB8fBF02QkBH3Z2m KQBc4WngI2bdoXIc1Nr/5QeSAhHY1p5evyrgHd8uqG17wEkPGx314Gmgd c=;
In-reply-to: <20151013033304.GL27164@dastard>
References: <0F279340237AA148AD7E3C6A70561A5E01266BE7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20151013002308.GI27164@dastard> <8a1b26a3b869448e805485c529c447a4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20151013033304.GL27164@dastard>
Thread-index: AdEC1680Gy4Y381SQNu4wXlh8fvUqwCn49kAAAhmBND///HgAIAAUclg
Thread-topic: mkfs.xfs -n size=65536
Hi Dave,

I can try the dev kernel with your change.  How do I go about getting the new 
bits?

# uname -a 
Linux abc.company.com 3.10.0-229.1.2.el7.x86_64 #1 SMP Fri Mar 6 17:12:08 EST 
2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux

Thanks,
-Al

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Chinner [mailto:david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, October 12, 2015 8:33 PM
To: Al Lau (alau2)
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: mkfs.xfs -n size=65536

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 01:39:13AM +0000, Al Lau (alau2) wrote:
> Have a 3 TB file.  Logically divide into 1024 sections.  Each section 
> has a process doing dd to a randomly selected 4K block in a loop.  
> Will this test case eventually cause the extent fragmentation that 
> lead to the kmem_alloc message?
> 
> dd if=/var/kmem_alloc/junk of=/var/kmem_alloc/fragmented obs=4096 
> bs=4096 count=1 seek=604885543 conv=fsync,notrunc oflag=direct

If you were loking for a recipe to massively fragment a file, then you found 
it. And, yes, when you start to get millions of extents in a file such as this 
workload will cause, you'll start having memory allocation problems.

But I don't think that sets the GFP_ZERO flag anywhere, so that's not 
necessarily where the memroy shortage is coming from. I just committed some 
changes to the dev tree that allow for more detailed information from this 
allocation error point to be obtained - perhaps if woul dbe worthwhile trying a 
kernel build form the current for-next tree and turning the error level up to 
11?

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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