RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 07/11] f2fs: enable in-place-update for fdatasync

From: Chao Yu
Date: Wed Jul 30 2014 - 08:49:45 EST

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call"
Previous message: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Add helpers for locked_vm"
In reply to: Jaegeuk Kim: "Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 07/11] f2fs: enable in-place-update for fdatasync"
Next in thread: Jaegeuk Kim: "[PATCH 09/11] f2fs: test before set/clear bits"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Hi,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 11:13 AM
> To: Chao Yu
> Cc: 'Changman Lee'; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 07/11] f2fs: enable in-place-update for fdatasync
>
> On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 10:45:38AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > Hi Jaegeuk Changman,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 9:08 AM
> > > To: Changman Lee
> > > Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 07/11] f2fs: enable in-place-update for fdatasync
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:54:55AM +0900, Changman Lee wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:22:15AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > Hi Changman,
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:41:11AM +0900, Changman Lee wrote:
> > > > > > Hi Jaegeuk,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:47:21PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > This patch enforces in-place-updates only when fdatasync is requested.
> > > > > > > If we adopt this in-place-updates for the fdatasync, we can skip to write the
> > > > > > > recovery information.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But, as you know, random write occurs when changing into in-place-updates.
> > > > > > It will degrade write performance. Is there any case in-place-updates is
> > > > > > better, except recovery or high utilization?
> > > > >
> > > > > As I described, you can easily imagine, if users requested small amount of data
> > > > > writes with fdatasync, we should do data writes + node writes.
> > > > > But, if we can do in-place-update, we don't need to write node blocks.
> > > > > Surely it triggers random writes, however, the amount of data is preety small
> > > > > and the device handles them very fast by its inside cache, so that it can
> > > > > enhance the performance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > Partially agree. Sometimes, I see that SSR shows lower performance than
> > > > IPU. One of the reasons might be node writes.
> > >
> > > What did you mean? That's why I consider IPU eagarly instead of SSR and LFS
> > > under the very strict cases.
> > >
> > > > Anyway, if so, we should know total dirty pages for fdatasync and it's very
> > > > tunable according to a random write performance of device.
> > >
> > > Agreed. We can do that either by comparing the number of dirty pages,
> > > additional data/node writes, and cost of checkpoint at the same time.
> > > And there is another thing is that we need to consider the number of
> > > waiting time for end_io.
> > > I'll look into this at some time.
> >
> > Agreed, but please additionally consider that the number we got is not highly
> > accurate because without protection of ->i_mutex writer could generate more
> > dirty pages.
>
> Right, but IMO, it doesn't need to get correct numbers.
> Just for reference is enough.
> Sort of trade-offs. :)

Hmmm...maybe it's not necessary to worry about this condition as our trade-offs
algorithm is good enough.
Anyway, let's make the fixed patch based on the test data. :)

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Thanks,

>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> > > > > > > fs/f2fs/file.c | 7 +++++++
> > > > > > > fs/f2fs/segment.h | 4 ++++
> > > > > > > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > > > > index ab36025..8f8685e 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > > > > @@ -998,6 +998,7 @@ enum {
> > > > > > > FI_INLINE_DATA, /* used for inline data*/
> > > > > > > FI_APPEND_WRITE, /* inode has appended data */
> > > > > > > FI_UPDATE_WRITE, /* inode has in-place-update data */
> > > > > > > + FI_NEED_IPU, /* used fo ipu for fdatasync */
> > > > > > > };
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > static inline void set_inode_flag(struct f2fs_inode_info *fi, int flag)
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > index 121689a..e339856 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > @@ -127,11 +127,18 @@ int f2fs_sync_file(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t
> end,
> > > int datasync)
> > > > > > > return 0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > trace_f2fs_sync_file_enter(inode);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > + /* if fdatasync is triggered, let's do in-place-update */
> > > > > > > + if (datasync)
> > > > > > > + set_inode_flag(fi, FI_NEED_IPU);
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, start, end);
> > > > > > > if (ret) {
> > > > > > > trace_f2fs_sync_file_exit(inode, need_cp, datasync, ret);
> > > > > > > return ret;
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > + if (datasync)
> > > > > > > + clear_inode_flag(fi, FI_NEED_IPU);
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > * if there is no written data, don't waste time to write recovery info.
> > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > > > > > > index ee5c75e..55973f7 100644
> > > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > > > > > > @@ -486,6 +486,10 @@ static inline bool need_inplace_update(struct inode *inode)
> > > > > > > if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
> > > > > > > return false;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + /* this is only set during fdatasync */
> > > > > > > + if (is_inode_flag_set(F2FS_I(inode), FI_NEED_IPU))
> > > > > > > + return true;
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > switch (SM_I(sbi)->ipu_policy) {
> > > > > > > case F2FS_IPU_FORCE:
> > > > > > > return true;
> > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > 1.8.5.2 (Apple Git-48)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
> > > > > > > search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
> > > > > > > Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
> > > > > > > search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
> > > > > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > > > > > Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > Infragistics Professional
> > > Build stunning WinForms apps today!
> > > Reboot your WinForms applications with our WinForms controls.
> > > Build a bridge from your legacy apps to the future.
> > > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=153845071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Next message: Pavel Machek: "Re: [PATCH, RFC] random: introduce getrandom(2) system call"
Previous message: Peter Zijlstra: "Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Add helpers for locked_vm"
In reply to: Jaegeuk Kim: "Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 07/11] f2fs: enable in-place-update for fdatasync"
Next in thread: Jaegeuk Kim: "[PATCH 09/11] f2fs: test before set/clear bits"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]