Hi Chris,
I am playing with the raid5/6 code, to adapt my "disk-usage"
patches to the raid5/6 code.
During this develop I found that the chunk allocation is strange.
Looking at the code I found in volume.c the following codes:
3576 static int __btrfs_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
3730 /*
3731 * this will have to be fixed for RAID1 and RAID10 over
3732 * more drives
3733 */
3734 data_stripes = num_stripes / ncopies;
3735
3736 if (stripe_size * ndevs > max_chunk_size * ncopies) {
3737 stripe_size = max_chunk_size * ncopies;
3738 do_div(stripe_size, ndevs);
3739 }
This code decides how big is a chunk, following two mains roles:
1) the chunk stripe shall be less than max_stripe_size
2) the chunk capability (the space usable by the user) shall
be less than max_chunk_size.
The code above works well in case of RAID0/RAID1/DUP/SINGLE/RAID10
but doesn't play well in case of RAID5/6. In fact in case the chunk
type is BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_METADATA then max_stripe_size is 1GB
and max_chunk_size is 1GB too. If the number of devices (ndevs) is 7
and the raid profile is RAID6, then ncopies is 3, the stripe_size is
1GB*3/7 = 438MB, which lead to a chunk size of 2.14GB ! Which is
not the expected value.
I think that we should change the test above in raid6 case to
data_stripes = ndevs - 2;
if (stripe_size * data_stripes > max_chunk_size) {
stripe_size = max_chunk_size;
do_div(stripe_size, data_stripes);
}
The patch below should solve this issue, and clean up a bit the logic
separating the code of raid5, raid6 from the code of the others
raid profiles.
Anyway I would like to point out another possible issue: the
fragmentation. To avoid the fragmentation should we round up
the stripe size to a more sane value like like 256MB ?
I know that this could led to an "insane" chunk size when
the number of disk is higher; but the current logic (
the stripe_size is equal to the chunk_size / number_of_device)
could lead to fragmentation problem when different raid profiles
where used together.
BR
G.Baroncelli
Signed-off-by: Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@xxxxxxxxx>
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index c372264..88d17b4 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -3724,25 +3724,32 @@ static int __btrfs_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
stripe_size = devices_info[ndevs-1].max_avail;
num_stripes = ndevs * dev_stripes;
- /*
- * this will have to be fixed for RAID1 and RAID10 over
- * more drives
- */
- data_stripes = num_stripes / ncopies;
-
- if (stripe_size * ndevs > max_chunk_size * ncopies) {
- stripe_size = max_chunk_size * ncopies;
- do_div(stripe_size, ndevs);
- }
if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID5) {
raid_stripe_len = find_raid56_stripe_len(ndevs - 1,
btrfs_super_stripesize(info->super_copy));
- data_stripes = num_stripes - 1;
- }
- if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6) {
+ data_stripes = ndevs - 1;
+ if (stripe_size * data_stripes > max_chunk_size) {
+ stripe_size = max_chunk_size;
+ do_div(stripe_size, data_stripes);
+ }
+ } else if (type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_RAID6) {
raid_stripe_len = find_raid56_stripe_len(ndevs - 2,
btrfs_super_stripesize(info->super_copy));
- data_stripes = num_stripes - 2;
+ data_stripes = ndevs - 2;
+ if (stripe_size * data_stripes > max_chunk_size) {
+ stripe_size = max_chunk_size;
+ do_div(stripe_size, data_stripes);
+ }
+ } else { /* RAID1, RAID0, RAID10, SINGLE, SUP */
+ /*
+ * this will have to be fixed for RAID1 and RAID10 over
+ * more drives
+ */
+ data_stripes = num_stripes / ncopies;
+ if (stripe_size * ndevs > max_chunk_size * ncopies) {
+ stripe_size = max_chunk_size * ncopies;
+ do_div(stripe_size, ndevs);
+ }
}
do_div(stripe_size, dev_stripes);
--
gpg @keyserver.linux.it: Goffredo Baroncelli (kreijackATinwind.it>
Key fingerprint BBF5 1610 0B64 DAC6 5F7D 17B2 0EDA 9B37 8B82 E0B5
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
