From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: skip f2fs_preallocate_blocks() for overwrite case
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 11:16:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YgFv85dH0dWFTZBx@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220204091005.49407-1-chao@kernel.org>
On 02/04, Chao Yu wrote:
> There is potential hangtask happened during swapfile's writeback:
>
> - loop_kthread_worker_fn - do_checkpoint
> - kthread_worker_fn
> - loop_queue_work
> - lo_rw_aio
> - f2fs_file_write_iter
> - f2fs_preallocate_blocks
> - f2fs_map_blocks
> - down_write
> - down_read
> - rwsem_down_read_slowpath
> - schedule
>
> One cause is f2fs_preallocate_blocks() will always be called no matter
> the physical block addresses are allocated or not.
>
> This patch tries to check whether block addresses are all allocated with
> i_size and i_blocks of inode, it's rough because blocks can be allocated
> beyond i_size, however, we can afford skipping block preallocation in this
> condition since it's not necessary to do preallocation all the time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
> ---
> v2:
> - check overwrite case with i_size and i_blocks roughly.
> fs/f2fs/file.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> index cfdc41f87f5d..09565d10611d 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> @@ -4390,6 +4390,16 @@ static int f2fs_preallocate_blocks(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
> int flag;
> int ret;
>
> + /*
> + * It tries to check whether block addresses are all allocated,
> + * it's rough because blocks can be allocated beyond i_size,
> + * however, we can afford skipping block preallocation since
> + * it's not necessary all the time.
> + */
> + if (F2FS_BLK_ALIGN(i_size_read(inode)) ==
> + SECTOR_TO_BLOCK(inode->i_blocks))
Do we count i_blocks only for data?
> + return 0;
> +
> /* If it will be an out-of-place direct write, don't bother. */
> if (dio && f2fs_lfs_mode(sbi))
> return 0;
> --
> 2.32.0
_______________________________________________
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: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: skip f2fs_preallocate_blocks() for overwrite case
Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 11:16:03 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YgFv85dH0dWFTZBx@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220204091005.49407-1-chao@kernel.org>
On 02/04, Chao Yu wrote:
> There is potential hangtask happened during swapfile's writeback:
>
> - loop_kthread_worker_fn - do_checkpoint
> - kthread_worker_fn
> - loop_queue_work
> - lo_rw_aio
> - f2fs_file_write_iter
> - f2fs_preallocate_blocks
> - f2fs_map_blocks
> - down_write
> - down_read
> - rwsem_down_read_slowpath
> - schedule
>
> One cause is f2fs_preallocate_blocks() will always be called no matter
> the physical block addresses are allocated or not.
>
> This patch tries to check whether block addresses are all allocated with
> i_size and i_blocks of inode, it's rough because blocks can be allocated
> beyond i_size, however, we can afford skipping block preallocation in this
> condition since it's not necessary to do preallocation all the time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
> ---
> v2:
> - check overwrite case with i_size and i_blocks roughly.
> fs/f2fs/file.c | 10 ++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> index cfdc41f87f5d..09565d10611d 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> @@ -4390,6 +4390,16 @@ static int f2fs_preallocate_blocks(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter,
> int flag;
> int ret;
>
> + /*
> + * It tries to check whether block addresses are all allocated,
> + * it's rough because blocks can be allocated beyond i_size,
> + * however, we can afford skipping block preallocation since
> + * it's not necessary all the time.
> + */
> + if (F2FS_BLK_ALIGN(i_size_read(inode)) ==
> + SECTOR_TO_BLOCK(inode->i_blocks))
Do we count i_blocks only for data?
> + return 0;
> +
> /* If it will be an out-of-place direct write, don't bother. */
> if (dio && f2fs_lfs_mode(sbi))
> return 0;
> --
> 2.32.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-07 19:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-04 9:10 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: skip f2fs_preallocate_blocks() for overwrite case Chao Yu
2022-02-04 9:10 ` Chao Yu
2022-02-07 19:16 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2022-02-07 19:16 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2022-02-08 1:41 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2022-02-08 1:41 ` 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=YgFv85dH0dWFTZBx@google.com \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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.