Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-48027-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2024 12:46:14 +0100
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Ojaswin Mujoo <ojaswin@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
	ritesh.list@gmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com,
	stable@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: correct best extent lstart adjustment logic
Message-ID: <20240201114614.4jkvi2c6buuovsj7@quack3>
References: <20240122123332.555370-1-libaokun1@huawei.com>
 <20240131124636.gmxaiex6yqrhvxcj@quack3>
 <3630fa7f-b432-7afd-5f79-781bc3b2c5ea@huawei.com>
 <Zbt7setS4c/Q4fyv@li-bb2b2a4c-3307-11b2-a85c-8fa5c3a69313.ibm.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Zbt7setS4c/Q4fyv@li-bb2b2a4c-3307-11b2-a85c-8fa5c3a69313.ibm.com>

Hi guys!

On Thu 01-02-24 16:38:33, Ojaswin Mujoo wrote:
> Thanks for the CC, I somehow missed this patch.
> 
> As described in the discussion Jan linked [1] , there is a known bug in the
> normalize code (which i should probably get back to now ) where we sometimes
> end up with a goal range which doesn't completely cover the original extent and
> this was causing issues when we tried to cover the complete original request in
> the PA window adjustment logic. That and to minimize fragmentation, we ended up
> going with the logic we have right now.
> 
> In short, I agree that in the example Baokun pointed out, it is not
> optimal to have to make an allocation request twice when we can get it in
> one go.
> 
> I also think Baokun is correct that if keeping the best extent at the end
> doesn't cover the original start, then any other case should not lead to
> it overflowing out of goal extent, including the case where original
> extent is overflowing goal extent.

Right, it was not obvious to me yesterday but when I've now reread how the
normalization shifts the goal window, it is obvious.

> So, as mentioned, it boils down to a trade off between multiple allocations and slightly 
> increased fragmentation. iiuc preallocations are anyways dropped when the file closes
> so I think it shouldn't hurt too much fragmentation wise to prioritize less
> allocations. What are your thoughts on this Jan, Baokun?

OK, I'm fine with the Baokun's change if we remove the problematic BUG_ON.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR