Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: reduce competition among node page writes

From: Jaegeuk Kim
Date: Thu Jul 31 2014 - 02:44:55 EST

Next message: Yan, Zheng: "[PATCH v4 0/9] perf, x86: large PEBS interrupt threshold"
Previous message: Rik van Riel: "Re: [LKP] [sched/numa] a43455a1d57: +94.1% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local"
In reply to: Chao Yu: "RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: reduce competition among node page writes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 01:31:46PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Changman,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Changman Lee [mailto:cm224.lee@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2014 10:07 AM
> > To: Chao Yu
> > Cc: 'Jaegeuk Kim'; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: reduce competition among node page writes
> >
> > Hi Chao,
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 09:07:49PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > Hi Jaegeuk Changman,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Chao Yu [mailto:chao2.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2014 6:59 PM
> > > > To: Jaegeuk Kim; Changman Lee
> > > > Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > > linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > > Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: reduce competition among node page writes
> > > >
> > > > We do not need to block on ->node_write among different node page writers e.g.
> > > > fsync/flush, unless we have a node page writer from write_checkpoint.
> > > > So it's better use rw_semaphore instead of mutex type for ->node_write to
> > > > promote performance.
> > >
> > > If you could have time to help explaining the problem of this patch, I will be
> > > appreciated for that.
> >
> > I have no clue. Except checkpoint, I don't know why need to block to
> > write node page.
> > Do you have any problem when you test with this patch?
>
> I don't have.
> I send this patch about one month ago, but got no respond.
> So I want to ask if any problem in this patch or forget to look at this patch?
>
> To Jaegeuk:
> Any idea about this patch?

Oh, I forgot to send an email for this.
At that time, when I looked at a glance, I thought that it was not clear why
this should be merged.

But, when I contemplate again, it seems that several fsync threads could produce
multiple node writers, resulting in some mutex contention.
Just for sure, can you verify that?

Nevertheless, I think there would be no problem to merge this patch now.
Merged.

>
> >
> > >
> > > Another question is what is ->writepages in sbi used for? I'm not quite clear.
> > >
> >
> > I remember it is for writing data pages per thread as much as possible.
> > When multi-threads write some files simultaneously, multi-threads contended with
> > each other to allocate a block. So block allocation was interleaved
> > across threads. It makes fragmentation of file.

Good. :)

>
> Thank you for the explanation! :)
> I think what you say is reasonable.
>
> Previously I tested without this lock, although I found that the blocks written
> _almost_ were continuous in each '->writepages()'. Still I think we can gain more
> from readahead continuous block when using this lock, rather than remove it for
> promoting concurrent of writers.
>
> Thanks,
> Yu
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 6 +++---
> > > > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 2 +-
> > > > fs/f2fs/node.c | 4 ++--
> > > > fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 +-
> > > > 4 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> > > > index 0b4710c..eec406b 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> > > > @@ -714,10 +714,10 @@ retry_flush_dents:
> > > > * until finishing nat/sit flush.
> > > > */
> > > > retry_flush_nodes:
> > > > - mutex_lock(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > + down_write(&sbi->node_write);
> > > >
> > > > if (get_pages(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES)) {
> > > > - mutex_unlock(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > + up_write(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > sync_node_pages(sbi, 0, &wbc);
> > > > goto retry_flush_nodes;
> > > > }
> > > > @@ -726,7 +726,7 @@ retry_flush_nodes:
> > > >
> > > > static void unblock_operations(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> > > > {
> > > > - mutex_unlock(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > + up_write(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > f2fs_unlock_all(sbi);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > index ae3b4ac..ca30b5a 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > @@ -444,7 +444,7 @@ struct f2fs_sb_info {
> > > > struct inode *meta_inode; /* cache meta blocks */
> > > > struct mutex cp_mutex; /* checkpoint procedure lock */
> > > > struct rw_semaphore cp_rwsem; /* blocking FS operations */
> > > > - struct mutex node_write; /* locking node writes */
> > > > + struct rw_semaphore node_write; /* locking node writes */
> > > > struct mutex writepages; /* mutex for writepages() */
> > > > bool por_doing; /* recovery is doing or not */
> > > > wait_queue_head_t cp_wait;
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > index a90f51d..7b5b5de 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > @@ -1231,12 +1231,12 @@ static int f2fs_write_node_page(struct page *page,
> > > > if (wbc->for_reclaim)
> > > > goto redirty_out;
> > > >
> > > > - mutex_lock(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > + down_read(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > set_page_writeback(page);
> > > > write_node_page(sbi, page, &fio, nid, ni.blk_addr, &new_addr);
> > > > set_node_addr(sbi, &ni, new_addr, is_fsync_dnode(page));
> > > > dec_page_count(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES);
> > > > - mutex_unlock(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > + up_read(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > unlock_page(page);
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > > index 8f96d93..bed9413 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > > > @@ -947,7 +947,7 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
> > > > mutex_init(&sbi->gc_mutex);
> > > > mutex_init(&sbi->writepages);
> > > > mutex_init(&sbi->cp_mutex);
> > > > - mutex_init(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > + init_rwsem(&sbi->node_write);
> > > > sbi->por_doing = false;
> > > > spin_lock_init(&sbi->stat_lock);
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 1.7.9.5
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
> > > > Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
> > > > Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
> > > > Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
> > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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: Yan, Zheng: "[PATCH v4 0/9] perf, x86: large PEBS interrupt threshold"
Previous message: Rik van Riel: "Re: [LKP] [sched/numa] a43455a1d57: +94.1% proc-vmstat.numa_hint_faults_local"
In reply to: Chao Yu: "RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: reduce competition among node page writes"
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]