On 22.12.19 г. 20:00 ч., Josef Bacik wrote:
> On 12/22/19 12:49 PM, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 22.12.19 г. 19:43 ч., Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On 12/21/19 1:24 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Recent kernels, I think since 5.1 or 5.2, but tested today on 5.3.18,
>>>> 5.4.5, 5.5.0rc2, takes quite a long time for `fstrim /` to complete,
>>>> just over 1 minute.
>>>>
>>>> Filesystem Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
>>>> /dev/nvme0n1p7 178G 16G 161G 9% /
>>>>
>>>> fstrim stops on this for pretty much the entire time:
>>>> ioctl(3, FITRIM, {start=0, len=0xffffffffffffffff, minlen=0}) = 0
>>>>
>>>> top shows the fstrim process itself isn't consuming much CPU, about
>>>> 2-3%. Top five items in per top, not much more revealing.
>>>>
>>>> Samples: 220K of event 'cycles', 4000 Hz, Event count (approx.):
>>>> 3463316966 lost: 0/0 drop: 0/0
>>>> Overhead Shared Object Symbol
>>>> 1.62% [kernel] [k] find_next_zero_bit
>>>> 1.59% perf [.] 0x00000000002ae063
>>>> 1.52% [kernel] [k] psi_task_change
>>>> 1.41% [kernel] [k]
>>>> update_blocked_averages
>>>> 1.33% [unknown] [.] 0000000000000000
>>>>
>>>> On a different system, with older Samsung 840 SATA SSD, and a fresh
>>>> Btrfs, I can't reproduce. It takes less than 1s. Not sure how to get
>>>> more information.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You want to try Dennis's async discard stuff? That should fix these
>>> problems for you, the patches are in Dave's tree. Thanks,
>>
>> But aren't those only for inline discards e.g. when you have explicitly
>> mounted with discard. The use case here is using FITRIM ioctl, does
>> Dennis' stuff fix this?
>>
>
> I definitely misread the email, I thought he was talking about the
> commits being slow. The async discard stuff won't help with fitrim
> taking forever, there's only so much we can do in the face of shitty
> ssd's. Thanks,
Well, if we rework how fitrim is implemented - e.g. make discards async
and have some sort of locking to exclude queued extents being allocated
we can alleviate the problem somewhat.
>
> Josef
