1. 20 3月, 2012 2 次提交
  2. 21 2月, 2012 4 次提交
  3. 19 12月, 2011 1 次提交
  4. 26 10月, 2011 4 次提交
  5. 21 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  6. 06 10月, 2011 1 次提交
  7. 10 9月, 2011 10 次提交
  8. 02 8月, 2011 3 次提交
  9. 01 8月, 2011 1 次提交
  10. 27 7月, 2011 4 次提交
  11. 24 7月, 2011 2 次提交
  12. 18 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  13. 12 7月, 2011 2 次提交
  14. 11 7月, 2011 4 次提交
    • T
      ext4: Change the wrong param comment for ext4_trim_all_free · 22612283
      Tao Ma 提交于
      at ext4_trim_all_free() comment, there is no longer an @e4b parameter,
      instead it is @group.
      Reported-by: NAndreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
      Signed-off-by: NTao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
      Signed-off-by: N"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
      22612283
    • T
      ext4: Speed up FITRIM by recording flags in ext4_group_info · 3d56b8d2
      Tao Ma 提交于
      In ext4, when FITRIM is called every time, we iterate all the
      groups and do trim one by one. It is a bit time wasting if the
      group has been trimmed and there is no change since the last
      trim.
      
      So this patch adds a new flag in ext4_group_info->bb_state to
      indicate that the group has been trimmed, and it will be cleared
      if some blocks is freed(in release_blocks_on_commit). Another
      trim_minlen is added in ext4_sb_info to record the last minlen
      we use to trim the volume, so that if the caller provide a small
      one, we will go on the trim regardless of the bb_state.
      
      A simple test with my intel x25m ssd:
      df -h shows:
      /dev/sdb1              40G   21G   17G  56% /mnt/ext4
      Block size:               4096
      
      run the FITRIM with the following parameter:
      range.start = 0;
      range.len = UINT64_MAX;
      range.minlen = 1048576;
      
      without the patch:
      [root@boyu-tm linux-2.6]# time ./ftrim /mnt/ext4/a
      real	0m5.505s
      user	0m0.000s
      sys	0m1.224s
      [root@boyu-tm linux-2.6]# time ./ftrim /mnt/ext4/a
      real	0m5.359s
      user	0m0.000s
      sys	0m1.178s
      [root@boyu-tm linux-2.6]# time ./ftrim /mnt/ext4/a
      real	0m5.228s
      user	0m0.000s
      sys	0m1.151s
      
      with the patch:
      [root@boyu-tm linux-2.6]# time ./ftrim /mnt/ext4/a
      real	0m5.625s
      user	0m0.000s
      sys	0m1.269s
      [root@boyu-tm linux-2.6]# time ./ftrim /mnt/ext4/a
      real	0m0.002s
      user	0m0.000s
      sys	0m0.001s
      [root@boyu-tm linux-2.6]# time ./ftrim /mnt/ext4/a
      real	0m0.002s
      user	0m0.000s
      sys	0m0.001s
      
      A big improvement for the 2nd and 3rd run.
      
      Even after I delete some big image files, it is still much
      faster than iterating the whole disk.
      
      [root@boyu-tm test]# time ./ftrim /mnt/ext4/a
      real	0m1.217s
      user	0m0.000s
      sys	0m0.196s
      
      Cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
      Reviewed-by: NAndreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>
      Signed-off-by: NTao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
      Signed-off-by: N"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
      3d56b8d2
    • T
      ext4: Add new ext4 trim tracepoints · b3d4c2b1
      Tao Ma 提交于
      Add ext4_trim_extent and ext4_trim_all_free.
      Reviewed-by: NLukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
      Signed-off-by: NTao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
      Signed-off-by: N"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
      b3d4c2b1
    • T
      ext4: speed up group trim with the right free block count · 169ddc3e
      Tao Ma 提交于
      When we trim some free blocks in a group of ext4, we need to 
      calculate the free blocks properly and check whether there are
      enough freed blocks left for us to trim. Current solution will
      only calculate free spaces if they are large for a trim which
      isn't appropriate.
      
      Let us see a small example:
      a group has 1.5M free which are 300k, 300k, 300k, 300k, 300k.
      And minblocks is 1M.  With current solution, we have to iterate
      the whole group since these 300k will never be subtracted from
      1.5M.  But actually we should exit after we find the first 2
      free spaces since the left 3 chunks only sum up to 900K if we
      subtract the first 600K although they can't be trimed.
      Reviewed-by: NAndreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>
      Signed-off-by: NTao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
      Signed-off-by: N"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
      169ddc3e