> On Oct. 7, 2014, 8:46 p.m., Matthew Ahrens wrote: > > usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c, lines 4803-4804 > > <https://reviews.csiden.org/r/112/diff/1/?file=10378#file10378line4803> > > > > I see that you're keeping the meaning of these stats the same, but I > > think they were wrong before. What would you think about changing them to > > the (new, correct definition) write_asize?
Yes, I agree that it would be better to update these (duplicate?) stats to the new meaning. One issue is that they are increased in just this one place, but there are many places where they are decreased, so vdev_psize_to_asize() would have to be littered over a lot more code. Also, there could be a semi-theorical discussion about what an actual size of a write is and what the used space actuall is. For example, let ashift be 12 (for 4KB physical sector size) and let's assume that we write a 1KB buffer (zio->io_size = 1024) and then skip 3KB so that the next buffer would be written at an aligned offset. A disk will have to do read-modify-write, so internally it writes 4KB, but for the OS the write is 1KB. And should we treat that skipped 3KB remainder of a physical block as a used space or as a some sort of a hole? But then there is this issue https://www.illumos.org/issues/5220. I think that if that issue is fixed then the stats will automatically become correct and we will not actually need vdev_psize_to_asize() in l2arc_write_buffers() as all write sizes will be ashift aligned. The bug is about disks that can not emulate 512B sectors, however I think that it should make things less confusing for 512e kind of disks as well. - Andriy ----------------------------------------------------------- This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: https://reviews.csiden.org/r/112/#review275 ----------------------------------------------------------- On Oct. 7, 2014, 7:04 p.m., Andriy Gapon wrote: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit: > https://reviews.csiden.org/r/112/ > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (Updated Oct. 7, 2014, 7:04 p.m.) > > > Review request for OpenZFS Developer Mailing List, Matthew Ahrens and Saso > Kiselkov. > > > Repository: illumos-gate > > > Description > ------- > > If we don't account for that, then we might end up overwriting disk > area of buffers that have not been evicted yet, because l2arc_evict > operates in terms of disk addresses. > > The discrepancy between the write size calculation and the actual increment > to l2ad_hand was introduced in > commit e14bb3258d05c1b1077e2db7cf77088924e56919 > > Also, consistently use asize / a_sz for the allocated size, psize / p_sz > for the physical size. Where the latter accounts for possible size > reduction because of compression, whereas the former accounts for possible > size expansion because of alignment requirements. > > The code still assumes that either underlying storage subsystems or > hardware is able to do read-modify-write when an L2ARC buffer size is > not a multiple of a disk's block size. This is true for 4KB sector disks > that provide 512B sector emulation, but may not be true in general. > In other words, we currently do not have any code to make sure that > an L2ARC buffer, whether compressed or not, which is used for physical I/O > has a suitable size. > > > Diffs > ----- > > usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/arc.c 69d16af3b669458e3937fe0c6a4d91755bc6e2a7 > > Diff: https://reviews.csiden.org/r/112/diff/ > > > Testing > ------- > > > Thanks, > > Andriy Gapon > >
_______________________________________________ developer mailing list [email protected] http://lists.open-zfs.org/mailman/listinfo/developer
