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=unavailable 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 16DC9C38BF9 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:53:53 +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 DB1E120CC7; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:53:52 +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="eajAXef4"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="h8sjVZZ4"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="Fe/ofi/U" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org DB1E120CC7 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-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j6Lfj-00087N-8X; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:53:51 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j6Lfh-00085R-VX for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:53:49 +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=Q9Jjqz1rRun89fWJ1ALZ64pfCS+dFqLbv8suk3OWJag=; b=eajAXef4BPXwfOiOFfFGfIKF3f PEhjh8gybOBMm6NsKQDuY/BewqgE7B+glTTb6JcA+tlT9peVGtYsbOErDmCBREJDkLKRxvpNOkxTZ VBT46sDmpgDrkpDbTGLlZQ0JglVBPWkXq+NLTGvYAF+NTCv6ySVPeK8EJJgWjuJQR0K4=; 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=Q9Jjqz1rRun89fWJ1ALZ64pfCS+dFqLbv8suk3OWJag=; b=h8sjVZZ4BwgimVDVHEueFi/me/ 7zhuSGPodmjEdyfRT9Ay3iy1dAoYZ/O0MOiXx2Ba886oY1hScXrnwgZNzec9lOw4tCL3VsMxcrRdq dTZcDEYT1E062GpCx+DT4SNuRzjTrnOjhcaoX4mSoNpbOeOOZ9a5zfgIYSU+oeTUwFuU=; 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 1j6Lff-00FSSX-Vo for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:53:49 +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 5861C20CC7; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:53:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1582581222; bh=OQfgRDNqPUwUySOhg5bb3Y/nenIgHuWlmnmhgJ6GTHE=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=Fe/ofi/UwUcKmEvcM/dTb8cHpCur6gEGE4qnCv3RefIsGWfGr/LkaJ4JUsRH0KEWF T7gLHhiaLepMt5oh+U4eFcuV4AC30Xtncx0R12uJ67RZAHACo90NvHnF0FmEO0h/vs 46JTTgWYTjm0seaEiJlFNKEzYpDF4StWl61ZCvmk= Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 13:53:41 -0800 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Message-ID: <20200224215341.GB77839@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> <20200219030425.GA102063@google.com> <266f233b-e084-cccd-d07e-96d8438d5b74@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <266f233b-e084-cccd-d07e-96d8438d5b74@huawei.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Headers-End: 1j6Lff-00FSSX-Vo 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 11:04, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > 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 > > Yup, that's a problem, if there are more dirty datas being made, reserved segments > may be ran out during FG_GC. > > > to block everything and make min. free segments as a best shot. > > I just try to simulate write GC's logic in FTL to mitigate single op's max latency, > otherwise benchmark looks hang during FG_GC (in a 500mb+ section). Hmm, I think we may need to think another way like doing BG_GC more aggressively. > > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> 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