All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
To: qixiaoyu <qxy65535@gmail.com>
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
	qixiaoyu1 <qixiaoyu1@xiaomi.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: separate IPU policy for fdatasync from F2FS_IPU_FSYNC
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 22:30:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8368702c-ae33-b810-a6c3-ac8fa29998df@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221108123218.GC22857@mi-HP-ProDesk-680-G4-MT>

On 2022/11/8 20:32, qixiaoyu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 09:54:59PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2022/11/2 20:25, qixiaoyu wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> fdatasync do in-place-update to avoid additional node writes, but currently
>>> it only do that with F2FS_IPU_FSYNC as:
>>>
>>> f2fs_do_sync_file:
>>> 	if (datasync || get_dirty_pages(inode) <= SM_I(sbi)->min_fsync_blocks)
>>>   		set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NEED_IPU);
>>>
>>> check_inplace_update_policy:
>>> 	/* this is only set during fdatasync */
>>> 	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_FSYNC) &&
>>> 			is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NEED_IPU))
>>> 		return true;
>>>
>>> So this patch separate in-place-update of fdatasync from F2FS_IPU_FSYNC to
>>> apply it to all IPU policy.
>>>
>>> BTW, we found small performance improvement with this patch on AndroBench app
>>> using F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL on our product:
>>
>> How this patch affects performance when F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL is on?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
> 
> SQLite test in AndroBench app use fdatasync to sync file to the disk.
> When switch to F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL ipu_policy, it will use out-of-place-update
> even though SQLite calls fdatasync, which will introduce extra meta data write.

Why not using F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL | F2FS_IPU_FSYNC, I guess these two flags
cover different scenarios, F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL for ssr case, and F2FS_IPU_FSYNC
for f{data,}sync case.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks.
> 
>>>
>>>                  F2FS_IPU_FSYNC  F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL   F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL(with patch)
>>> SQLite Insert(QPS)  6818.08     6327.09(-7.20%)     6757.72
>>> SQLite Update(QPS)  6528.81     6336.57(-2.94%)     6490.77
>>> SQLite Delete(QPS)  9724.68     9378.37(-3.56%)     9622.27
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 11:14:55PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2022/10/21 10:31, qixiaoyu1 wrote:
>>>>> Currently IPU policy for fdatasync is coupled with F2FS_IPU_FSYNC.
>>>>> Fix to apply it to all IPU policy.
>>>>
>>>> Xiaoyu,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the delay.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't get the point, can you please explain more about the
>>>> issue?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: qixiaoyu1 <qixiaoyu1@xiaomi.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   fs/f2fs/data.c | 8 +++-----
>>>>>   fs/f2fs/file.c | 4 +++-
>>>>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>> index a71e818cd67b..fec8e15fe820 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>> @@ -2518,6 +2518,9 @@ static inline bool check_inplace_update_policy(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>   	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_HONOR_OPU_WRITE) &&
>>>>>   			is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_OPU_WRITE))
>>>>>   		return false;
>>>>> +	/* this is set by fdatasync or F2FS_IPU_FSYNC policy */
>>>>> +	if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NEED_IPU))
>>>>> +		return true;
>>>>>   	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_FORCE))
>>>>>   		return true;
>>>>>   	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_SSR) && f2fs_need_SSR(sbi))
>>>>> @@ -2538,11 +2541,6 @@ static inline bool check_inplace_update_policy(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>   			!IS_ENCRYPTED(inode))
>>>>>   		return true;
>>>>> -	/* this is only set during fdatasync */
>>>>> -	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_FSYNC) &&
>>>>> -			is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NEED_IPU))
>>>>> -		return true;
>>>>> -
>>>>>   	if (unlikely(fio && is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED) &&
>>>>>   			!f2fs_is_checkpointed_data(sbi, fio->old_blkaddr)))
>>>>>   		return true;
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>> index 82cda1258227..08091550cdf2 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>> @@ -270,8 +270,10 @@ static int f2fs_do_sync_file(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end,
>>>>>   		goto go_write;
>>>>>   	/* if fdatasync is triggered, let's do in-place-update */
>>>>> -	if (datasync || get_dirty_pages(inode) <= SM_I(sbi)->min_fsync_blocks)
>>>>> +	if (datasync || (SM_I(sbi)->ipu_policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_FSYNC) &&
>>>>> +			get_dirty_pages(inode) <= SM_I(sbi)->min_fsync_blocks))
>>>>>   		set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NEED_IPU);
>>>>> +
>>>>>   	ret = file_write_and_wait_range(file, start, end);
>>>>>   	clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_NEED_IPU);


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
To: qixiaoyu <qxy65535@gmail.com>
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
	qixiaoyu1 <qixiaoyu1@xiaomi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: separate IPU policy for fdatasync from F2FS_IPU_FSYNC
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 22:30:13 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <8368702c-ae33-b810-a6c3-ac8fa29998df@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221108123218.GC22857@mi-HP-ProDesk-680-G4-MT>

On 2022/11/8 20:32, qixiaoyu wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 09:54:59PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2022/11/2 20:25, qixiaoyu wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> fdatasync do in-place-update to avoid additional node writes, but currently
>>> it only do that with F2FS_IPU_FSYNC as:
>>>
>>> f2fs_do_sync_file:
>>> 	if (datasync || get_dirty_pages(inode) <= SM_I(sbi)->min_fsync_blocks)
>>>   		set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NEED_IPU);
>>>
>>> check_inplace_update_policy:
>>> 	/* this is only set during fdatasync */
>>> 	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_FSYNC) &&
>>> 			is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NEED_IPU))
>>> 		return true;
>>>
>>> So this patch separate in-place-update of fdatasync from F2FS_IPU_FSYNC to
>>> apply it to all IPU policy.
>>>
>>> BTW, we found small performance improvement with this patch on AndroBench app
>>> using F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL on our product:
>>
>> How this patch affects performance when F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL is on?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
> 
> SQLite test in AndroBench app use fdatasync to sync file to the disk.
> When switch to F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL ipu_policy, it will use out-of-place-update
> even though SQLite calls fdatasync, which will introduce extra meta data write.

Why not using F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL | F2FS_IPU_FSYNC, I guess these two flags
cover different scenarios, F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL for ssr case, and F2FS_IPU_FSYNC
for f{data,}sync case.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks.
> 
>>>
>>>                  F2FS_IPU_FSYNC  F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL   F2FS_IPU_SSR_UTIL(with patch)
>>> SQLite Insert(QPS)  6818.08     6327.09(-7.20%)     6757.72
>>> SQLite Update(QPS)  6528.81     6336.57(-2.94%)     6490.77
>>> SQLite Delete(QPS)  9724.68     9378.37(-3.56%)     9622.27
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 11:14:55PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2022/10/21 10:31, qixiaoyu1 wrote:
>>>>> Currently IPU policy for fdatasync is coupled with F2FS_IPU_FSYNC.
>>>>> Fix to apply it to all IPU policy.
>>>>
>>>> Xiaoyu,
>>>>
>>>> Sorry for the delay.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't get the point, can you please explain more about the
>>>> issue?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: qixiaoyu1 <qixiaoyu1@xiaomi.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   fs/f2fs/data.c | 8 +++-----
>>>>>   fs/f2fs/file.c | 4 +++-
>>>>>   2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>> index a71e818cd67b..fec8e15fe820 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>> @@ -2518,6 +2518,9 @@ static inline bool check_inplace_update_policy(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>   	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_HONOR_OPU_WRITE) &&
>>>>>   			is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_OPU_WRITE))
>>>>>   		return false;
>>>>> +	/* this is set by fdatasync or F2FS_IPU_FSYNC policy */
>>>>> +	if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NEED_IPU))
>>>>> +		return true;
>>>>>   	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_FORCE))
>>>>>   		return true;
>>>>>   	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_SSR) && f2fs_need_SSR(sbi))
>>>>> @@ -2538,11 +2541,6 @@ static inline bool check_inplace_update_policy(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>   			!IS_ENCRYPTED(inode))
>>>>>   		return true;
>>>>> -	/* this is only set during fdatasync */
>>>>> -	if (policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_FSYNC) &&
>>>>> -			is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NEED_IPU))
>>>>> -		return true;
>>>>> -
>>>>>   	if (unlikely(fio && is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_CP_DISABLED) &&
>>>>>   			!f2fs_is_checkpointed_data(sbi, fio->old_blkaddr)))
>>>>>   		return true;
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>> index 82cda1258227..08091550cdf2 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>> @@ -270,8 +270,10 @@ static int f2fs_do_sync_file(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end,
>>>>>   		goto go_write;
>>>>>   	/* if fdatasync is triggered, let's do in-place-update */
>>>>> -	if (datasync || get_dirty_pages(inode) <= SM_I(sbi)->min_fsync_blocks)
>>>>> +	if (datasync || (SM_I(sbi)->ipu_policy & (0x1 << F2FS_IPU_FSYNC) &&
>>>>> +			get_dirty_pages(inode) <= SM_I(sbi)->min_fsync_blocks))
>>>>>   		set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NEED_IPU);
>>>>> +
>>>>>   	ret = file_write_and_wait_range(file, start, end);
>>>>>   	clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_NEED_IPU);

  reply	other threads:[~2022-11-08 14:30 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-21  2:31 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: separate IPU policy for fdatasync from F2FS_IPU_FSYNC qixiaoyu1
2022-10-21  2:31 ` qixiaoyu1
2022-10-31 11:27 ` [f2fs-dev] " qixiaoyu
2022-10-31 11:27   ` qixiaoyu
2022-11-01 15:14 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2022-11-01 15:14   ` Chao Yu
2022-11-02 12:25   ` [f2fs-dev] " qixiaoyu
2022-11-02 12:25     ` qixiaoyu
2022-11-06 13:54     ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2022-11-06 13:54       ` Chao Yu
2022-11-08 12:32       ` [f2fs-dev] " qixiaoyu
2022-11-08 12:32         ` qixiaoyu
2022-11-08 14:30         ` Chao Yu [this message]
2022-11-08 14:30           ` Chao Yu
2022-11-09 12:56           ` [f2fs-dev] " qixiaoyu
2022-11-09 12:56             ` qixiaoyu
2022-11-09 13:39             ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2022-11-09 13:39               ` 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=8368702c-ae33-b810-a6c3-ac8fa29998df@kernel.org \
    --to=chao@kernel.org \
    --cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=qixiaoyu1@xiaomi.com \
    --cc=qxy65535@gmail.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.