On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 11:35:21AM +0530, Kundan Kumar wrote: > On 10/22/2025 10:09 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 21, 2025 at 09:46:30AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> Not necessarily. The allocator can (and will) select different AGs > >> for an inode as the file grows and the AGs run low on space. Once > >> they select a different AG for an inode, they don't tend to return > >> to the original AG because allocation targets are based on > >> contiguous allocation w.r.t. existing adjacent extents, not the AG > >> the inode is located in. > > > > Also, as pointed out in the last discussion of this for the RT > > subvolume there is zero relation between the AG the inode is in > > and the data placement. > > > > > I evaluated the effect of parallel writeback on realtime inodes and > observed no improvement in IOPS. We can limit writes for realtime > inodes to utilize a single default (0) writeback context. Do you > see it differently?
Was that with or without rtgroups? metadir/rtgroups aren't enabled by default yet so you'd have to select that manually with mkfs.xfs -m metadir=1. (and you might still not see much change because of what hch said) --D _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
