From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: chao@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to account total free nid correctly
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:45:57 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161114204557.GA28366@jaegeuk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161114112456.113074-1-yuchao0@huawei.com>
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:24:56PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Thread A Thread B Thread C
> - f2fs_create
> - f2fs_new_inode
> - f2fs_lock_op
> - alloc_nid
> alloc last nid
> - f2fs_unlock_op
> - f2fs_create
> - f2fs_new_inode
> - f2fs_lock_op
> - alloc_nid
> as node count still not
> be increased, we will
> loop in alloc_nid
> - f2fs_write_node_pages
> - f2fs_balance_fs_bg
> - f2fs_sync_fs
> - write_checkpoint
> - block_operations
> - f2fs_lock_all
> - f2fs_lock_op
>
> While creating new inode, we do not allocate and account nid atomically,
> so that when there is almost no free nids left, we may encounter deadloop
> like above stack.
>
> In order to avoid that, add nm_i::free_nid_cnt for accounting free nids
> and do nid allocation atomically during node creation.
How about using nm_i::avaiable_nids for this?
It seems that we don't need both of variables at the same time.
Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> fs/f2fs/node.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index 6de1fbf..9de6f20 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@ -551,6 +551,7 @@ struct f2fs_nm_info {
> struct radix_tree_root free_nid_root;/* root of the free_nid cache */
> struct list_head nid_list[MAX_NID_LIST];/* lists for free nids */
> unsigned int nid_cnt[MAX_NID_LIST]; /* the number of free node id */
> + unsigned int free_nid_cnt; /* the number of total free nid */
> spinlock_t nid_list_lock; /* protect nid lists ops */
> struct mutex build_lock; /* lock for build free nids */
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> index d58438f..e412d0e 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> @@ -1885,11 +1885,13 @@ bool alloc_nid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t *nid)
> return false;
> }
> #endif
> - if (unlikely(sbi->total_valid_node_count + 1 > nm_i->available_nids))
> - return false;
> -
> spin_lock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
>
> + if (unlikely(nm_i->free_nid_cnt == 0)) {
> + spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> /* We should not use stale free nids created by build_free_nids */
> if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID_LIST] && !on_build_free_nids(nm_i)) {
> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, list_empty(&nm_i->nid_list[FREE_NID_LIST]));
> @@ -1900,6 +1902,7 @@ bool alloc_nid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t *nid)
> __remove_nid_from_list(sbi, i, FREE_NID_LIST, true);
> i->state = NID_ALLOC;
> __insert_nid_to_list(sbi, i, ALLOC_NID_LIST, false);
> + nm_i->free_nid_cnt--;
> spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
> return true;
> }
> @@ -1951,6 +1954,9 @@ void alloc_nid_failed(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t nid)
> i->state = NID_NEW;
> __insert_nid_to_list(sbi, i, FREE_NID_LIST, false);
> }
> +
> + nm_i->free_nid_cnt++;
> +
> spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
>
> if (need_free)
> @@ -2222,8 +2228,12 @@ static void __flush_nat_entry_set(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> raw_nat_from_node_info(raw_ne, &ne->ni);
> nat_reset_flag(ne);
> __clear_nat_cache_dirty(NM_I(sbi), ne);
> - if (nat_get_blkaddr(ne) == NULL_ADDR)
> + if (nat_get_blkaddr(ne) == NULL_ADDR) {
> add_free_nid(sbi, nid, false);
> + spin_lock(&NM_I(sbi)->nid_list_lock);
> + NM_I(sbi)->free_nid_cnt++;
> + spin_unlock(&NM_I(sbi)->nid_list_lock);
> + }
> }
>
> if (to_journal)
> @@ -2302,6 +2312,7 @@ static int init_node_manager(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID_LIST] = 0;
> nm_i->nid_cnt[ALLOC_NID_LIST] = 0;
> nm_i->nat_cnt = 0;
> + nm_i->free_nid_cnt = nm_i->available_nids - sbi->total_valid_node_count;
> nm_i->ram_thresh = DEF_RAM_THRESHOLD;
> nm_i->ra_nid_pages = DEF_RA_NID_PAGES;
> nm_i->dirty_nats_ratio = DEF_DIRTY_NAT_RATIO_THRESHOLD;
> --
> 2.8.2.311.gee88674
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chao@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to account total free nid correctly
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2016 12:45:57 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20161114204557.GA28366@jaegeuk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161114112456.113074-1-yuchao0@huawei.com>
On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 07:24:56PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Thread A Thread B Thread C
> - f2fs_create
> - f2fs_new_inode
> - f2fs_lock_op
> - alloc_nid
> alloc last nid
> - f2fs_unlock_op
> - f2fs_create
> - f2fs_new_inode
> - f2fs_lock_op
> - alloc_nid
> as node count still not
> be increased, we will
> loop in alloc_nid
> - f2fs_write_node_pages
> - f2fs_balance_fs_bg
> - f2fs_sync_fs
> - write_checkpoint
> - block_operations
> - f2fs_lock_all
> - f2fs_lock_op
>
> While creating new inode, we do not allocate and account nid atomically,
> so that when there is almost no free nids left, we may encounter deadloop
> like above stack.
>
> In order to avoid that, add nm_i::free_nid_cnt for accounting free nids
> and do nid allocation atomically during node creation.
How about using nm_i::avaiable_nids for this?
It seems that we don't need both of variables at the same time.
Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> fs/f2fs/node.c | 19 +++++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index 6de1fbf..9de6f20 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@ -551,6 +551,7 @@ struct f2fs_nm_info {
> struct radix_tree_root free_nid_root;/* root of the free_nid cache */
> struct list_head nid_list[MAX_NID_LIST];/* lists for free nids */
> unsigned int nid_cnt[MAX_NID_LIST]; /* the number of free node id */
> + unsigned int free_nid_cnt; /* the number of total free nid */
> spinlock_t nid_list_lock; /* protect nid lists ops */
> struct mutex build_lock; /* lock for build free nids */
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> index d58438f..e412d0e 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> @@ -1885,11 +1885,13 @@ bool alloc_nid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t *nid)
> return false;
> }
> #endif
> - if (unlikely(sbi->total_valid_node_count + 1 > nm_i->available_nids))
> - return false;
> -
> spin_lock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
>
> + if (unlikely(nm_i->free_nid_cnt == 0)) {
> + spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
> + return false;
> + }
> +
> /* We should not use stale free nids created by build_free_nids */
> if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID_LIST] && !on_build_free_nids(nm_i)) {
> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, list_empty(&nm_i->nid_list[FREE_NID_LIST]));
> @@ -1900,6 +1902,7 @@ bool alloc_nid(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t *nid)
> __remove_nid_from_list(sbi, i, FREE_NID_LIST, true);
> i->state = NID_ALLOC;
> __insert_nid_to_list(sbi, i, ALLOC_NID_LIST, false);
> + nm_i->free_nid_cnt--;
> spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
> return true;
> }
> @@ -1951,6 +1954,9 @@ void alloc_nid_failed(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t nid)
> i->state = NID_NEW;
> __insert_nid_to_list(sbi, i, FREE_NID_LIST, false);
> }
> +
> + nm_i->free_nid_cnt++;
> +
> spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
>
> if (need_free)
> @@ -2222,8 +2228,12 @@ static void __flush_nat_entry_set(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> raw_nat_from_node_info(raw_ne, &ne->ni);
> nat_reset_flag(ne);
> __clear_nat_cache_dirty(NM_I(sbi), ne);
> - if (nat_get_blkaddr(ne) == NULL_ADDR)
> + if (nat_get_blkaddr(ne) == NULL_ADDR) {
> add_free_nid(sbi, nid, false);
> + spin_lock(&NM_I(sbi)->nid_list_lock);
> + NM_I(sbi)->free_nid_cnt++;
> + spin_unlock(&NM_I(sbi)->nid_list_lock);
> + }
> }
>
> if (to_journal)
> @@ -2302,6 +2312,7 @@ static int init_node_manager(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID_LIST] = 0;
> nm_i->nid_cnt[ALLOC_NID_LIST] = 0;
> nm_i->nat_cnt = 0;
> + nm_i->free_nid_cnt = nm_i->available_nids - sbi->total_valid_node_count;
> nm_i->ram_thresh = DEF_RAM_THRESHOLD;
> nm_i->ra_nid_pages = DEF_RA_NID_PAGES;
> nm_i->dirty_nats_ratio = DEF_DIRTY_NAT_RATIO_THRESHOLD;
> --
> 2.8.2.311.gee88674
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-11-14 20:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-11-14 11:24 [PATCH] f2fs: fix to account total free nid correctly Chao Yu
2016-11-14 11:24 ` Chao Yu
2016-11-14 20:45 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2016-11-14 20:45 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-11-15 1:15 ` Chao Yu
2016-11-15 1:15 ` Chao Yu
2016-11-17 9:42 ` heyunlei
2016-11-17 9:42 ` [f2fs-dev] " heyunlei
2016-11-17 12:09 ` Chao Yu
2016-11-17 12:09 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20161114204557.GA28366@jaegeuk \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.