Received: by 2002:a25:e74b:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id e72csp1400503ybh; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:02:05 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyBjDy1vKalCgPoOiuVzKbZMk6jBp2HbpufQIxfpZ9MVzO/yhQw2ZvdOsHQVzcz8cZb0Tvp X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:4b16:: with SMTP id y22mr4844485eju.4.1595516525797; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:02:05 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1595516525; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=WvsXV0m/hJP+6p1imliNIPRPBmhwgQApYE3Z+EOFYS95hDBVMLMnI/eMgDcytYvvAV J2BC9wOob77i9VBjNyhc5Xztn9Eap7fEaXpdoE/fi5j3DXPkuaDwTpcxnULWSq70+63r EasOvIRBccSLBeaiqlERvjhpj0ATTUTM01zw11iKoH0Y8Z3xfI1REBosFOVYEAsd4x1K VZv7Rm2kVRw5M2XsLeljc6k1c8K7nOnlWw6KTMrI1YswkDYchGrUmUAPClINm7sqH+cI biogXLK88SZ7jmVfoqjQOYCLSxPl23BRhpMyUoJb/PQnt1mJ0Xv9rU5m+r0tnR+sOh0v 4xMw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:in-reply-to:content-disposition :mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc:to:from:date; bh=5gkf4qu5WJYvHPnGgXXqTHG4/w3cVtTRHzAAI+4hrx8=; b=hP9CDTtOG7oF98Qk3R2qsdNNut2s0PdCefAzmt6izbf6V+T7VzD4yvxsdub/H6CyXk wC2x2BPjF8MSZm1dK6l9tO+xtPl/SApbWcxLekb9j9lzzILO26AMF1rXsr5G2qeAEXMs 0kYBre7s/h6ef5CfpeA5CPEvbX+TqmDivMZebf9RQCcFsLeq+x0mxTCX3kTqbYA1r25d pKjMb+DxBTYSbWwpZQmQgYrFW2nIdbbOKdZiojvRYkBwHsx1pGuvsTGDDk8v+VDAHOmx r4yWSPDX0J2wamvwBI5GzmFXNyDweT3OcYS6ckd1yIXu4hygR5vnB2ddOjixjiW2yqqB FoIA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id cq3si2055965edb.486.2020.07.23.08.01.32; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:02:05 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1729516AbgGWPAO (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:00:14 -0400 Received: from outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu ([18.9.28.11]:43439 "EHLO outgoing.mit.edu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1729323AbgGWPAO (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:00:14 -0400 Received: from callcc.thunk.org (pool-96-230-252-158.bstnma.fios.verizon.net [96.230.252.158]) (authenticated bits=0) (User authenticated as tytso@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 06NF07ln026768 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:00:08 -0400 Received: by callcc.thunk.org (Postfix, from userid 15806) id 14030420304; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:00:07 -0400 (EDT) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:00:06 -0400 From: tytso@mit.edu To: Andreas Dilger Cc: Ext4 Developers List , Alex Zhuravlev , Shuichi Ihara Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] ext4: add prefetching for block allocation bitmaps Message-ID: <20200723150006.GF1536749@mit.edu> References: <20200717155352.1053040-1-tytso@mit.edu> <20200717155352.1053040-2-tytso@mit.edu> <1F791FDF-75A7-48D9-A0A7-764D5AEC8E4B@dilger.ca> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1F791FDF-75A7-48D9-A0A7-764D5AEC8E4B@dilger.ca> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 01:42:54AM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: > > I re-reviewed the patch with the changes, and it looks OK. I see that > you reduced the prefetch limit from 32 to 4 group blocks, presumably to > keep the latency low? It would be useful to see what impact that has > on the mount time and IO performance of a large filesystem. No, I didn't change it. As before, it's 4 times the size of the flex_bg size (assuming the file system has flex bg's enabled); otherwise it's 128 (4 times 32). I'm actually worried that this is too aggressive on storage devies where LBA's which are adjacent to each other aren't necessarily adjacent to each other on the physical storage device. For example, on dm-thin, some qemu-img formats, and potentially some cloud virtual block devices.... Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to query a block device to determine whether adjacent LBA's are really adjacent in the real world. - Ted