Re: [PATCH v7 00/47] xfs: add reverse mapping support

["Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 07:18:52PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 05:58:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 01:55:20PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Wed, Aug 03, 2016 at 12:45:36PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> > > > Where can I the patches to enable dedupe_range on xfs? I tested your
> > > > previous devel branch based on Linux v4.7-rc3 with duperemove
> > > > (https://github.com/markfasheh/duperemove) and it worked extremely well -
> > > > even handling some cases that btrfs still has issues with. I actually
> > > > committed the code to enable xfs support in duperemove so anyone can test on
> > > > xfs with the dedupe_range patches.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd gladly test your latest patches by doing my usual 'large' duperemove
> > > > tests once I can get ahold of the dedupe_range work :)
> > > 
> > > Your best bets are probably the -experimental trees:
> > > https://github.com/djwong/linux/commits/djwong-experimental
> > > https://github.com/djwong/xfsprogs/commits/djwong-experimental
> > > 
> > > I haven't updated them in a while because I've been busy trying
> > > to get reverse-mapping (the start of those patchbombs) into 4.8.
> > > 
> > > Just as a warning, don't put anything critical on those XFS filesystems
> > > because there's going to be a disk format update between now and the
> > > next time I post the patches because Dave and I decided to cache the
> > > block counts for the new btrees in order to speed up mounting.  I don't
> > > anticipate having time to clean up my dev tree and push to github until
> > > a week or two after the merge window closes.
> > 
> > That said, all the craziness from the last two weeks (xfs_scrub sprint
> > and the rmapbt review fixes) are now in the -wtf tree, which /should/
> > behave.  I've dumped everything there in completely not cleaned up
> > format, but this does have the AGF btree block counter stuff I talked
> > about above.
> > 
> > https://github.com/djwong/linux/commits/djwong-wtf
> > https://github.com/djwong/xfsprogs/commits/djwong-wtf
> 
> Fantastic. Don't worry about corrupting data, I've been doing this long
> enough to know to use this only on scratch partitions for now  :) I'm in the
> middle of a couple other tests but once I'm done there I'll grab those
> branches and give them another spin. Typically I'm running through 800G-1TB
> on these (with varying duplicated data percentages).
> 
> Silly question which I could just answer by looking at the patches - are you
> reporting FIEMAP_EXTENT_SHARED yet for extents with more than one owner? We
> use that flag (by comparing SHARED bytes before and after dedupe) to give
> people an estimate of how much space was saved. I presume figuring the
> shared state of an extent would be as easy as querying the rmap btree,
> correct?

Yes, it should report FIEMAP_EXTENT_SHARED.  In the past it would
report exactly which parts of an extent were shared.  If a file mapped
blocks 30-40 and block 35 was shared, it would report 30-34, 35
(shared), and 36-40.  However, btrfs only reports a single extent
"30-40 (shared)" so I stopped doing that.

Incidentally, GETFSMAP is in that code pile too, in case duperemove
wanted to know exactly what's mapped to a block.  I'd be wary of it
for now though, since it hasn't been through any kind of review and
could change in the future.

--D

> 	--Mark
> 
> --
> Mark Fasheh