On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:30:45 +0800 Shaohua Li <shli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 4/18/12 12:48 PM, NeilBrown wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 08:58:14 +0800 Shaohua Li<shli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >> On 4/18/12 4:26 AM, NeilBrown wrote: > >>> On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 07:46:03 -0700 Dan Williams<dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 1:35 AM, Shaohua Li<shli@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> Discard for raid4/5/6 has limitation. If discard request size is small, we do > >>>>> discard for one disk, but we need calculate parity and write parity disk. To > >>>>> correctly calculate parity, zero_after_discard must be guaranteed. > >>>> > >>>> I'm wondering if we could use the new bad blocks facility to mark > >>>> discarded ranges so we don't necessarily need determinate data after > >>>> discard. > >>>> > >>>> ...but I have not looked into it beyond that. > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Dan > >>> > >>> No. > >>> > >>> The bad blocks framework can only store a limited number of bad ranges - 512 > >>> in the current implementation. > >>> That would not be an acceptable restriction for discarded ranges. > >>> > >>> You would need a bitmap of some sort if you wanted to record discarded > >>> regions. > >>> > >>> http://neil.brown.name/blog/20110216044002#5 > >> > >> This appears to remove the unnecessary resync for discarded range after > >> a crash > >> or discard error, eg an enhancement. From my understanding, it can't > >> remove the > >> limitation I mentioned in the patch. For raid5, we still need discard a > >> whole > >> stripe (discarding one disk but writing parity disk isn't good). > > > > It is certainly not ideal, but it is worse than not discarding at all? > > And would updating some sort of bitmap be just as bad as updating the parity > > block? > > > > How about treating a DISCARD request as a request to write a block full of > > zeros, then at the lower level treat any request to write a block full of > > zeros as a DISCARD request. So when the parity becomes zero, it gets > > discarded. > > > > Certainly it is best if the filesystem would discard whole stripes at a time, > > and we should be sure to optimise that. But maybe there is still room to do > > something useful with small discards? > > Sure, it would be great we can do small discards. But I didn't get how to do > it with the bitmap approach. Let's give an example, data disk1, data disk2, > parity disk3. Say discard some sectors of disk1. The suggested approach is > to mark the range bad. Then how to deal with parity disk3? As I said, > writing > parity disk3 isn't good. So mark the corresponding range of parity disk3 > bad too? If we did this, if disk2 is broken, how can we restore it? Why, exactly, is writing the parity disk not good? Not discarding blocks that we possibly could discard is also not good. Which is worst? > > Am I missed something or are you talking about different issues? We are probably talking about slightly different issues.. NeilBrown
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
