On Fri, Dec 15, 2023 at 05:07:36PM +0000, Wengang Wang wrote:
>
>
> > On Dec 14, 2023, at 7:15 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 01:35:02PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> >> On Thu, Dec 14, 2023 at 09:05:21AM -0800, Wengang Wang wrote:
> >>> Background:
> >>> We have the existing xfs_fsr tool which do defragment for files. It has the
> >>> following features:
> >>> 1. Defragment is implemented by file copying.
> >>> 2. The copy (to a temporary file) is exclusive. The source file is locked
> >>> during the copy (to a temporary file) and all IO requests are blocked
> >>> before the copy is done.
> >>> 3. The copy could take long time for huge files with IO blocked.
> >>> 4. The copy requires as many free blocks as the source file has.
> >>> If the source is huge, say it’s 1TiB, it’s hard to require the file
> >>> system to have another 1TiB free.
> >>>
> >>> The use case in concern is that the XFS files are used as images files for
> >>> Virtual Machines.
> >>> 1. The image files are huge, they can reach hundreds of GiB and even to TiB.
> >>> 2. Backups are made via reflink copies, and CoW makes the files badly fragmented.
> >>> 3. fragmentation make reflink copies super slow.
> >>> 4. during the reflink copy, all IO requests to the file are blocked for super
> >>> long time. That makes timeout in VM and the timeout lead to disaster.
> >>>
> >>> This feature aims to:
> >>> 1. reduce the file fragmentation making future reflink (much) faster and
> >>> 2. at the same time, defragmentation works in non-exclusive manner, it doesn’t
> >>> block file IOs long.
> >>>
> >>> Non-exclusive defragment
> >>> Here we are introducing the non-exclusive manner to defragment a file,
> >>> especially for huge files, without blocking IO to it long. Non-exclusive
> >>> defragmentation divides the whole file into small pieces. For each piece,
> >>> we lock the file, defragment the piece and unlock the file. Defragmenting
> >>> the small piece doesn’t take long. File IO requests can get served between
> >>> pieces before blocked long. Also we put (user adjustable) idle time between
> >>> defragmenting two consecutive pieces to balance the defragmentation and file IOs.
> >>> So though the defragmentation could take longer than xfs_fsr, it balances
> >>> defragmentation and file IOs.
> >>
> >> I'm kinda surprised you don't just turn on alwayscow mode, use an
> >> iomap_funshare-like function to read in and dirty pagecache (which will
> >> hopefully create a new large cow fork mapping) and then flush it all
> >> back out with writeback. Then you don't need all this state tracking,
> >> kthreads management, and copying file data through the buffer cache.
> >> Wouldn't that be a lot simpler?
> >
> > Hmmm. I don't think it needs any kernel code to be written at all.
> > I think we can do atomic section-by-section, crash-safe active file
> > defrag from userspace like this:
> >
> > scratch_fd = open(O_TMPFILE);
> > defrag_fd = open("file-to-be-dfragged");
> >
> > while (offset < target_size) {
> >
> > /*
> > * share a range of the file to be defragged into
> > * the scratch file.
> > */
> > args.src_fd = defrag_fd;
> > args.src_offset = offset;
> > args.src_len = length;
> > args.dst_offset = offset;
> > ioctl(scratch_fd, FICLONERANGE, args);
> >
> > /*
> > * For the shared range to be unshared via a
> > * copy-on-write operation in the file to be
> > * defragged. This causes the file needing to be
> > * defragged to have new extents allocated and the
> > * data to be copied over and written out.
> > */
> > fallocate(defrag_fd, FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE, offset, length);
> > fdatasync(defrag_fd);
> >
> > /*
> > * Punch out the original extents we shared to the
> > * scratch file so they are returned to free space.
> > */
> > fallocate(scratch_fd, FALLOC_FL_PUNCH, offset, length);
You could even set args.dst_offset = 0 and ftruncate here.
But yes, this is a better suggestion than adding more kernel code.
> > /* move onto next region */
> > offset += length;
> > };
> >
> > As long as the length is large enough for the unshare to create a
> > large contiguous delalloc region for the COW, I think this would
> > likely acheive the desired "non-exclusive" defrag requirement.
> >
> > If we were to implement this as, say, and xfs_spaceman operation
> > then all the user controlled policy bits (like inter chunk delays,
> > chunk sizes, etc) then just becomes command line parameters for the
> > defrag command...
>
>
> Ha, the idea from user space is very interesting!
> So far I have the following thoughts:
> 1). If the FICLONERANGE/FALLOC_FL_UNSHARE_RANGE/FALLOC_FL_PUNCH works
> on a FS without reflink enabled.
It does not.
That said, for your usecase (reflinked vm disk images that fragment over
time) that won't be an issue. For non-reflink filesystems, there's
fewer chances for extreme fragmentation due to the lack of COW.
> 2). What if there is a big hole in the file to be defragmented? Will
> it cause block allocation and writing blocks with zeroes.
FUNSHARE ignores holes.
> 3). In case a big range of the file is good (not much fragmented), the
> ‘defrag’ on that range is not necessary.
Yep, so you'd have to check the bmap/fiemap output first to identify
areas that are more fragmented than you'd like.
> 4). The use space defrag can’t use a try-lock mode to make IO requests
> have priorities. I am not sure if this is very important.
>
> Maybe we can work with xfs_bmap to get extents info and skip good
> extents and holes to help case 2) and 3).
Yeah, that sounds necessary.
--D
> I will figure above out.
> Again, the idea is so amazing, I didn’t reallize it.
>
> Thanks,
> Wengang
>
