From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.3 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7845AC34031 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 433E122B48; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="H41CAZ+0"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="CeCsfkIe"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="KIysn+oa" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 433E122B48 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j4Ff6-0003Kf-S4; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:04:32 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j4Ff6-0003KU-Dy for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:04:32 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=iimCKSN/g8a45Jz1erph2nYH3ncQRgnAGvQNHP71nS4=; b=H41CAZ+06MQFAO+HmPoG9jFpud Zb+RSqC48J4DzMEIjsVvtuIhEGxFpJW379AWADsH76mPePG/ChYLIob4V5LsuYmbnooHg66Ye554D npRt8MMd7LRBjaUKyBIkhOAbm4p9x0cpOz+MzcM18p4SoVL1zlty4hdVK7W6vdhhi/pc=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=iimCKSN/g8a45Jz1erph2nYH3ncQRgnAGvQNHP71nS4=; b=CeCsfkIenwVspDbFmwrKJSqfgA muVr20qyshDvYhy4LTTA3DG7YKVPIyDEK0r6rdjRdgWfZkTFWxs5/+JBAN4mHsXJYdk/JiRNN1Y5O IU4+7kDe+SXH133xOsmT1wbJMXsjqzeV3ydSZUpRue3ZazHt4OSlxk6BKKNNnWpc3FRo=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1j4Ff5-00H9e7-6E for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:04:32 +0000 Received: from localhost (unknown [104.132.1.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8900922B48; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 03:04:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1582081465; bh=DP/qxwF6iAUNhhTZiDV7zdMbqJqUcrKE5bdIhYfJA54=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=KIysn+oagpaBb+AHuGgZhZhrqZcEQaF08vrhLBy6xj0C06c1F2Jebp2DRmUlirUxQ dNN+D5EmdaVhGtm0iKUtXaQXpbD64a5LjhElZbGtO2GLQZwvdSNH3VGB9U4SSKi5kb BRAvRxSitohp/AKScApFzKGtbozpq2qqKQjejc6U= Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:04:25 -0800 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Message-ID: <20200219030425.GA102063@google.com> References: <20200214185855.217360-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <20200214185855.217360-3-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <9c497f3e-3399-e4a6-f81c-6c4a1f35e5bb@huawei.com> <20200218232714.GB10213@google.com> <117a927f-7128-b5a1-a961-22934bb62ec5@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <117a927f-7128-b5a1-a961-22934bb62ec5@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Headers-End: 1j4Ff5-00H9e7-6E Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 3/3] f2fs: skip migration only when BG_GC is called X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 02/19, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2020/2/19 7:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 02/17, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2020/2/15 2:58, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> FG_GC needs to move entire section more quickly. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim > >>> --- > >>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>> index bbf4db3f6bb4..1676eebc8c8b 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>> @@ -1203,7 +1203,7 @@ static int do_garbage_collect(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > >>> > >>> if (get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, false) == 0) > >>> goto freed; > >>> - if (__is_large_section(sbi) && > >>> + if (gc_type == BG_GC && __is_large_section(sbi) && > >>> migrated >= sbi->migration_granularity) > >> > >> I knew migrating one large section is a more efficient way, but this can > >> increase long-tail latency of f2fs_balance_fs() occasionally, especially in > >> extreme fragmented space. > > > > FG_GC requires to wait for whole section migration which shows the entire > > latency. > > That will cause long-tail latency for single f2fs_balance_fs() procedure, > which it looks a very long hang when userspace call f2fs syscall, so why > not splitting total elapsed time into several f2fs_balance_fs() to avoid that. Then, other ops can easily make more dirty segments. The intention of FG_GC is to block everything and make min. free segments as a best shot. > > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> goto skip; > >>> if (!PageUptodate(sum_page) || unlikely(f2fs_cp_error(sbi))) > >>> > > . > > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel