RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: shrink unreferenced extent_caches first

[Chao Yu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, July 04, 2015 2:29 PM
> To: Chao Yu
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: shrink unreferenced extent_caches first
> 
> On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 08:39:43PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2015 9:26 AM
> > > To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim; Jaegeuk Kim
> > > Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: shrink unreferenced extent_caches first
> > >
> > > If an extent_tree entry has a zero reference count, we can drop it from the
> > > cache in higher priority rather than currently referencing entries.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >  fs/f2fs/data.c | 51 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >  1 file changed, 41 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > index 8f059e0..a0a0e2b 100644
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > @@ -661,21 +661,54 @@ unsigned int f2fs_shrink_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int
> > > nr_shrink)
> > >  	struct radix_tree_root *root = &sbi->extent_tree_root;
> > >  	unsigned int found;
> > >  	unsigned int node_cnt = 0, tree_cnt = 0;
> > > +	int remained;
> > >
> > >  	if (!test_opt(sbi, EXTENT_CACHE))
> > >  		return 0;
> > >
> > > +	if (!down_write_trylock(&sbi->extent_tree_lock))
> > > +		goto out;
> > > +
> > > +	/* 1. remove unreferenced extent tree */
> >
> > We always release extent node and tree from inode with lowest ino,
> > why not random ino?
> 
> Here what I want to do is to
> 1. drop unreferenced inodes' extent trees;
>    the inodes were already evicted before,
> 2. drop LRU ordered extent nodes.

Actually, I got it, you codes show this method very clearly. :)

> 
> You're right. We don't need to drop it having the lowest ino first.
> Actually, I was supposed to add an LRU list for extent_trees.
> But, do we need to really take care of its order for already evicted inodes?
> 
> Here, we should think about two types of hit ratios.
> One is for inodes, and the other is for data.
> The VFS maintains inode_cache in an LRU order, while its data is cached via
> page cache also conrolled by LRU. And, whenever inode is evicted, VFS drops
> all the cached data.
> So, I believe we should give a higher priority to inodes rather than data.
> 
> And, in order to increase the hit ratio, we're trying to keep an extent tree
> and its nodes even if its corresponding inode was evicted.
> So, I concluded that the dropping order would not be critical especially for
> the already evicted inodes.

>From perspective of shrinking memory size, I think you're completely right,
because we can regard extent tree and its nodes as metadata of one inode, if
VFS evict one inode, all its data and metadata include data in extent cache
should be evicted.

But from perspective of arising hit ratio of our cache, I'm not sure this is
the best way.

I guess in this method, we may encounter lower coverage area of dnode + extent
cache and double caches exist issue, like:
a) all data of inode is evicted by VFS, and its tree and nodes in extent cache
is evicted too, resulting lower hit raito of further access.
b) data and node cache of inode is exist in VFS, and its tree and nodes in extent
cache is exist too.

> 
> >
> > And this step releasing breaks the rule of lru runs.
> >
> > Some unreferenced file has high hit ratio and some referenced file may
> > have low hit ratio. Why not release low hit ratio extent tree at first?
> 
> But, still user has opened the referenced file to further access, right?

It depends on access model.

What I mean is that if extent cache of one inode can be hit for many times,
we can assume the access model is re-accessly, that means, we can expect
this cache can be hit more times. On the contrary, we can release it if it
is necessary.

Thanks,

> And, the unreferenced file was evicted by VFS.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud.
> GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that
> you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business.
> Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today.
> https://www.gigenetcloud.com/
> _______________________________________________
> 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/