lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V1 02/17] ext4: Add the basic function for inline data support.
On 11/03/2011 05:16 AM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
> On 2011-10-27, at 8:53 AM, Tao Ma wrote:
>> On 10/27/2011 05:57 PM, Andreas Dilger wrote:
>>> if ANY other xattr exists it will be pushed to an external block, and
>>> then if this data xattr grows (much more likely than the other xattr
>>> changing) it won't fit into the inode, and now performance is
>>> permanently worse than before.
>>
>> OK, since it seems that lustre uses xattr heavily, I will try my best to
>> avoid the performance regression for xattr operations.
>
> I don't even think it is very much a Lustre problem, since it always
> stores file data in a separate filesystem from the metadata, and
> 60-byte files are going to have terrible performance either way.
>
> My main concern is for SELinux (enabled by default on most systems
> today). If the "small file" data is stored in the xattr space, and
> this pushes the SELinux xattr to an external block, we have added
> code complexity and a gratuitous format change (data in inode and
> metadata in block, instead of metadata in inode and data in block)
> with no real benefit at all.
Fair enough. Thanks for the explanation.
>
>>> In our environment we use at least 512-byte inodes on the metadata server, but I still don't want half if that space wasted on this xattr if so much is not needed.
>>
>> btw, I have another idea about using the not-used extent space for
>> storing inline data like what we do for a symlink. So I will still use a
>> xattr entry to indicate whether the inode will have inline data or not.
>> If yes, the initialized xattr value len will be zero while the extent
>> space(60 bytes) will be used to store the inline data. And if the file
>> size is larger than 60, it will begin to insert xattr values. In such
>> case, we supports inline data and don't use too much space after the
>> i_extra_isize. What do you think of it?
>
> I think this is an interesting idea. Since only the "data" xattr could
> use this space, it gives us an extra 60 bytes of space to be used in
> the inode and does not consume the xattr space. The main drawback is
> that this would add special case handling based on the xattr name, but
> I think it is worthwhile to investigate how complex that code is and
> what kind of performance improvement it gives.
>
> Looking at my FC13 installation, it seems like a large number of
> files could benefit from just 60 bytes of inline storage. So more
> than 10% of all of the files on the filesystem would fit in i_blocks.
> This filesystem includes a lot of source and build files, but I also
> think this is pretty typical of normal Linux usage.
>
> # find / -xdev -type f -size -61c | wc -l
> 35661
> # find / -xdev -type f | wc -l
> 335515
>
> The "fsstats" tool is useful for collecting interesting data like this:
> (http://www.pdsi-scidac.org/fsstats/files/fsstats-1.4.5.tar.gz)
> and it shows the same is true for directories as well:
>
>
> directory size (entries): Range of entries, count of directories in range,
> number of dirs in range as a % of total num of dirs, number of dirs in
> this range or smaller as a % total number of dirs, total entries in range,
> number of entries in range as a % of total number of entries, number of
> entries in this range or smaller as a % of total number of entries.
>
> count=33476 avg=11.38 ents
> min=0.00 ents max=3848.00 ents
> [ 0- 1 ents]: 11257 (33.63%) ( 33.63%) 9968.00 ents ( 2.62%) ( 2.62%)
> [ 2- 3 ents]: 7080 (21.15%) ( 54.78%) 16608.00 ents ( 4.36%) ( 6.97%)
> [ 4- 7 ents]: 5793 (17.30%) ( 72.08%) 30674.00 ents ( 8.05%) ( 15.02%)
> [ 8- 15 ents]: 3971 (11.86%) ( 83.94%) 43315.00 ents (11.37%) ( 26.39%)
> [ 16- 31 ents]: 2731 ( 8.16%) ( 92.10%) 59612.00 ents (15.64%) ( 42.04%)
> [ 32- 63 ents]: 1610 ( 4.81%) ( 96.91%) 69326.00 ents (18.19%) ( 60.23%)
> [ 64- 127 ents]: 705 ( 2.11%) ( 99.02%) 61633.00 ents (16.17%) ( 76.40%)
> [ 128- 255 ents]: 236 ( 0.70%) ( 99.72%) 40005.00 ents (10.50%) ( 86.90%)
> [ 256- 511 ents]: 66 ( 0.20%) ( 99.92%) 21923.00 ents ( 5.75%) ( 92.66%)
> [ 512-1023 ents]: 19 ( 0.06%) ( 99.98%) 14249.00 ents ( 3.74%) ( 96.40%)
> [1024-2047 ents]: 6 ( 0.02%) ( 99.99%) 7756.00 ents ( 2.04%) ( 98.43%)
> [2048-4095 ents]: 2 ( 0.01%) (100.00%) 5979.00 ents ( 1.57%) (100.00%)
>
> A simple test of the performance gains might be running "file" on
> everything in /etc and /usr, and measuring this with blktrace to
> see what kind of seek reduction is seen from not doing seeks to
> read the small files from an external block.
Thanks for the test tools, and yes, I will try to test it when I finish
my V2.
> I think it is still useful to try to store the data in the large inode
> xattr space if it is larger than i_blocks, especially for larger inodes,
> but if there is not enough space for all the xattrs to fit into the
> inode, I think "data" should be the first one to be pushed out of the
> inode since that changes the format back to a normal ext* file.
Oh, that does mean that we need to change the normal way we handling
xattr set. I am not sure of it. Maybe we need an option in sysfs that
can be tuned so that the user can tell us whether his inline file
content is more important or the xattr. :)
>
>
> We might also consider a reiserfs-like approach where multiple small
> files could be packed into the same shared xattr block, but then the
> xattr name would need to change from "data" to e.g. "inode.generation"
> so that it can be located within the block shared between inodes.
I'd like to defer it to a later version since it means that we still
need to do 2 I/Os for a small file, the same as a ext* file. Having said
that, it does be helpful for a sequence of small file read(file
iteration or tar) if the underlying block device do a good readahead
job. And this should help in the bigalloc case I mentioned in another
thread about changing extent lengh to cluster(the case is when we tar a
kernel source and do 'sync', it is very time-consuming for a bigalloc
volume).
>
> Tail packing is more complex, so such a change would only make sense
> if real-world testing showed a benefit. There is already the concept
> of shared external xattr blocks, so maybe it isn't too bad. Together
> with bigalloc, it might make sense to be able to pack many small files
> into one cluster if there is a binomial distribution of file sizes?
It is a bit complicate than the current code base. So let me first
implement all the suggestions above and then try to investigate whether
it really helps.

Thanks
Tao


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-11-03 05:25    [W:0.054 / U:28.884 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site