lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Dec]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] Set the initial TRIM information as TRIMMED
On 12/1/11 6:01 PM, Kyungmin Park wrote:
> On 12/2/11, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 12/1/11 1:00 AM, Kyungmin Park wrote:
>>> From: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> Now trim information doesn't stored at disk so every boot time. it's
>>> cleared.
>>> and do the trim all disk groups.
>>> But assume that it's already trimmed at previous time so don't need to
>>> trim it again. So set the intial state as trimmed.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kyungmin Park <kyungmin.park@samsung.com>
>>> ---
>>> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>>> index e2d8be8..97ef342 100644
>>> --- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>>> +++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
>>> @@ -1098,6 +1098,12 @@ int ext4_mb_init_group(struct super_block *sb,
>>> ext4_group_t group)
>>> goto err;
>>> }
>>> mark_page_accessed(page);
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * TRIM information is not stored at disk so set the initial
>>> + * state as trimmed. Since previous time it's already trimmed all
>>> + */
>>> + EXT4_MB_GRP_SET_TRIMMED(this_grp);
>>
> Hi,
>
>> Hm, so if there were freed but un-trimmed blocks at this point, we will
>> never trim them until we free _another_ block in the group, right? That
>> might be a reasonable tradeoff, but it is somewhat surprising behavior.
>>
>> i.e. say we do:
>>
>> mount /mnt
>> rm -rf /mnt/very_big_file
>> umount /mnt
>>
>> mount /mnt
>> fitrim /mnt
> another word, you can run fitrim after rm -rf
> yes, it's trade-off.
>
> In my case, phone scenario, no umount system and data partition. it's
> burden to trim at boot time. it has still slower boot time.
> some daemon or program run fitrm at filesystem. it consumes time and
> hurt other boot processes.
>>
>> then we won't trim anything at all, right, despite there being many
>> new free blocks? Which would be rather unexpected.
>>
>> If we don't store the trimmed state on disk, I think we should
>> probably stick with the slower first-time trim, and the more obvious
>> behavior (all free blocks are always trimmed whenever a trim
>> command is issued).
>
> Umm how do you think, introduce the trim force command for this?

Alternately, can we use a bit in bg_flags to keep a better view of this
state on disk, if this is critical?

-Eric

> Thank you,
> Kyungmin Park



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-12-02 16:59    [W:0.247 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2014 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site