From: Lukas Czerner Subject: Re: [PATCH] loop: add discard support for loop devices Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:56:35 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: References: <1313063143-14473-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Jens Axboe , Lukas Czerner , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: achender@linux.vnet.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50505 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753538Ab1HKL4k (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:56:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1313063143-14473-1-git-send-email-lczerner@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 11 Aug 2011, Lukas Czerner wrote: > This commit adds discard support for loop devices. Discard is usually > supported by SSD and thinly provisioned devices as a method for > reclaiming unused space. This is no different than trying to reclaim > back space which is not used by the file system on the image, but it > still occupies space on the host file system. > > We can do the reclamation on file system which does support hole > punching. So when discard request gets to the loop driver we can > translate that to punch a hole to the underlying file, hence reclaim > the free space. > > This is very useful for trimming down the size of the image to only what > is really used by the file system on that image. Fstrim may be used for > that purpose. > > It has been tested on ext4, xfs and btrfs with the image file systems > ext4, ext3, xfs and btrfs. ext4, or ext6 image on ext4 file system has > some problems but it seems that ext4 punch hole implementation is > somewhat flawed and it is unrelated to this commit. > > Also this is a very good method of validating file systems punch hole > implementation. > > Note that when encryption is used, discard support is disabled, because > using it might leak some information useful for possible attacker. Hi Allison, as I mentioned in the commit description I believe that I have seen problems with punch hole implementation. You can apply the commit to add discard support for loop device and then here is how to reproduce the problem: # mkfs.ext4 /dev/sdd # mount /dev/sdd /mnt/test # dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/test/bigfil2 bs=4096 seek=100M count=1 # mkfs.ext4 /mnt/test/bigfil2 # mount -o loop /mnt/test/bigfil2 /mnt/test3/ # fstrim -v /mnt/test3/ 422650347520 Bytes were trimmed # fsck.ext4 -fn /mnt/test1/bigfil2 e2fsck 1.41.12 (17-May-2010) Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes Pass 2: Checking directory structure Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity Pass 4: Checking reference counts Pass 5: Checking group summary information Block bitmap differences: +(524288--532511) Fix? no Free blocks count wrong for group #16 (24544, counted=32768). Fix? no Free blocks count wrong (103161576, counted=103169800). Fix? no /mnt/test1/bigfil2: ********** WARNING: Filesystem still has errors ********** /mnt/test1/bigfil2: 11/26214400 files (0.0% non-contiguous), 1696024/104857600 blocks And we also get corrupted file system on the ext3 image. I did not saw that for other file systems, but it is probably just the matter of how are blocks laid out in the file system format and there are more chunks of free blocks in ext[43] than xfs, or btrfs. Also you can find fstrim in latest util-inux-ng. And lastly I believe that this is great way to validate punch hole implementation. Just create an image on ext4 file system and run xfstest 251 (or stress.sh - oss.oracle.com/~mason/stress.sh) on it the image mounted with -o discard. Thanks! -Lukas