From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: How to fix up mballoc
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2009 21:18:27 -0500
Message-ID: <4A6919F3.90103@redhat.com>
References: <20090721001750.GD4231@webber.adilger.int> <20090722074352.GA21869@mit.edu> <4A67EE3F.4090909@redhat.com> <20090723134538.GC8040@mit.edu> <4A68A153.8030804@redhat.com> <20090724002317.GA14052@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Andreas Dilger <adilger@sun.com>, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20090724002317.GA14052@mit.edu>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2009 at 12:43:47PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> 1) In ext4_mb_normalize_request(), if the inode that we are allocating
>>> does not have any open file descriptors for write (i.e., it's already
>>> closed and we're allocating via delalloc) _and_ the inode was
>>> previously opened with O_CREAT and without O_APPEND (checked via a
>>> flag in EXT4_I(inode)), then do not normalize the size to a power of
>>> two, but rather to the filesystem blocksize.
>> I'm sort of woefully ignorant of a lot of the mballoc stuff.
>>
>> When you say once a file is written that's probably the final size... do
>> you mean when writes are done and it's closed, or when the first write
>> to the file is complete?
>>
>> I think an awful lot of normal cases write to a file in sub-file-sized
>> chunks (think mp3 or flac encoding, file downloading, etc).
> 
> I meant when the writes are done and the files are closed; hence my
> proposal that we do this do #1 above only if there are no open file
> descriptors for write.  That is, if the file can be written and closed
> by the userspace process before any delayed allocation blocks are
> attempted to be written by the filesystem, we can probably safely
> assume that the file won't grown in size later on.

Ah, ok.  Sorry, I misunderstood.  Yep, that seems reasonable.

It should probably get tested with workloads like video transcoding,
where there will be incremental writes that span many minutes or hours.

>> Also, I get the !O_APPEND test, but is O_CREAT necessary?  I wonder how
>> much of a hint that really gives us.
> 
> Well, it probably should be O_CREAT || O_TRUNC.  The basic idea here is
> to distinguish between a file which gets appended to via syslog, or
> via a mail delivery program that writes 4k of data to the end of a
> mail spool file.  In some cases, such as the mail delivery program, it
> might not use O_APPEND, but instead it might lock the file, seek to
> end of the file, and then right the 4k worth of e-mail.  So if the
> file wasn't freshly created (or truncated) at the last open, maybe we
> should use a more aggressive preallocation --- and in the case of
> /var/mail spool delivery, perhaps the preallocation should persist
> beyond the file getting closed.  (In the future we might want to have
> some hueristics where if we notice that the pattern of file writes is
> a repeated open, write-causing-block-allocation, close, maybe we
> should do some kind of block reservation style scheme while the
> filesystem is mounted and the inode stays in the inode cache.)


sounds fancy ;)

-Eric

> 	      	      	      	    	     - Ted