Skip to contentSkip to conversation

mballoc: allocate stripe-multiple IOs on stripe boundaries

PATCH In review Eric Sandeen 3 participants 3 messages Jul 14, 2010 – Jul 26, 2010 ext4 file system

lore
Share & tools
lore
#0 lore raw

PATCH 1/1 mballoc: allocate stripe-multiple IOs on stripe boundaries

For some reason, today mballoc only allocates IOs which are exactly stripe-sized on a stripe boundary. If you have a multiple (say, a 128k IO on a 64k stripe) you may end up unaligned.

It seems to me that a simple change to align stripe-multiple IOs on stripe boundaries would be a very good idea, unless this breaks some other mballoc heuristic for some reason...

---

fs/ext4/mballoc.c +3 -4
index 12b3bc0..f64a439 100644
@@ -1821,8 +1821,7 @@ void ext4_mb_complex_scan_group(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
 
 /*
  * This is a special case for storages like raid5
- * we try to find stripe-aligned chunks for stripe-size requests
- * XXX should do so at least for multiples of stripe size as well
+ * we try to find stripe-aligned chunks for stripe-size-multiple requests
  */
 static noinline_for_stack
 void ext4_mb_scan_aligned(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
@@ -2094,8 +2093,8 @@ repeat:
 			ac->ac_groups_scanned++;
 			if (cr == 0)
 				ext4_mb_simple_scan_group(ac, &e4b);
-			else if (cr == 1 &&
-					ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len == sbi->s_stripe)
+			else if (cr == 1 && sbi->s_stripe &&
+					!(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len % sbi->s_stripe))
 				ext4_mb_scan_aligned(ac, &e4b);
 			else
 				ext4_mb_complex_scan_group(ac, &e4b);
#1 lore raw

Ah, good catch. We don't notice this on Lustre, since we always use at most 1MB writes from the network and always configure with 1MB stripe size.

Quoted 40 lines · Eric Sandeen

For some reason, today mballoc only allocates IOs which are exactly stripe-sized on a stripe boundary. If you have a multiple (say, a 128k IO on a 64k stripe) you may end up unaligned.

It seems to me that a simple change to align stripe-multiple IOs on stripe boundaries would be a very good idea, unless this breaks some other mballoc heuristic for some reason...

---

fs/ext4/mballoc.c +1 -2
index 12b3bc0..f64a439 100644
@@ -1821,8 +1821,7 @@ void ext4_mb_complex_scan_group(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,
 
 /*
 * This is a special case for storages like raid5
- * we try to find stripe-aligned chunks for stripe-size requests
- * XXX should do so at least for multiples of stripe size as well
+ * we try to find stripe-aligned chunks for stripe-size-multiple requests
 */

static noinline_for_stack
void ext4_mb_scan_aligned(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac,

fs/ext4/mballoc.c +2 -3
@@ -2094,8 +2093,8 @@ repeat:
 			ac->ac_groups_scanned++;
 			if (cr == 0)
 				ext4_mb_simple_scan_group(ac, &e4b);
-			else if (cr == 1 &&
-					ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len == sbi->s_stripe)
+			else if (cr == 1 && sbi->s_stripe &&
+					!(ac->ac_g_ex.fe_len % sbi->s_stripe))
 				ext4_mb_scan_aligned(ac, &e4b);
 			else
 				ext4_mb_complex_scan_group(ac, &e4b);
 
 
--
Quoted 3 lines

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Cheers, Andreas

maintainer
#2 lore raw
In reply to Eric Sandeen
Quoted 7 lines · Eric Sandeen

For some reason, today mballoc only allocates IOs which are exactly stripe-sized on a stripe boundary. If you have a multiple (say, a 128k IO on a 64k stripe) you may end up unaligned.

It seems to me that a simple change to align stripe-multiple IOs on stripe boundaries would be a very good idea, unless this breaks some other mballoc heuristic for some reason...

I've added this to the ext4 tree, thanks.

- Ted