linux-f2fs-devel.lists.sourceforge.net archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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] f2fs: fix to trigger a checkpoint in the end of foreground garbage collection
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 08:55:47 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <ZC2aA+i5+HpdJ6M2@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a4e49177-3959-eb2b-996c-5d07b7390495@kernel.org>

On 04/05, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2023/4/5 5:39, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Can we do like this?
> > 
> >  From 9a58f0e59364241aa31b555cfe793d278e39b0dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > Date: Tue, 4 Apr 2023 14:36:00 -0700
> > Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: do checkpoint when there's not enough free sections
> > 
> > We didn't do checkpoint in FG_GC case, which may cause losing to reclaim prefree
> > sctions in time.
> > 
> > Fixes: 6f8d4455060d ("f2fs: avoid fi->i_gc_rwsem[WRITE] lock in f2fs_gc")
> > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >   fs/f2fs/gc.c | 24 +++++++++++-------------
> >   1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > index 56c53dbe05c9..f1d0dd9c5a6c 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > @@ -1806,6 +1806,7 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> >   	};
> >   	unsigned int skipped_round = 0, round = 0;
> >   	unsigned int upper_secs;
> > +	bool stop_gc = false;
> >   	trace_f2fs_gc_begin(sbi->sb, gc_type, gc_control->no_bg_gc,
> >   				gc_control->nr_free_secs,
> > @@ -1876,19 +1877,15 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> >   				(gc_type == FG_GC) ? sec_freed : 0, 0)) {
> >   		if (gc_type == FG_GC && sec_freed < gc_control->nr_free_secs)
> >   			goto go_gc_more;
> > -		goto stop;
> > -	}
> > -
> > -	/* FG_GC stops GC by skip_count */
> > -	if (gc_type == FG_GC) {
> > +		stop_gc = true;
> 
> I guess below condition is for emergency recycle of prefree segments during
> foreground GC, in order to avoid exhausting free sections due to to many
> metadata allocation during CP.
> 
> 	if (free_sections(sbi) <= upper_secs + NR_GC_CHECKPOINT_SECS &&
> 				prefree_segments(sbi)) {
> 
> But for common case, free_sections() is close to reserved_segments(), and
> upper_secs + NR_GC_CHECKPOINT_SECS value may be far smaller than free_sections(),
> so checkpoint may not be trggered as expected, IIUC.
> 
> So it's fine to just trigger CP in the end of foreground garbage collection?

My major concern is to avoid unnecessary checkpointing given multiple FG_GC
requests were pending in parallel. And, I don't want to add so many combination
which gives so many corner cases, and feel f2fs_gc() needs to call checkpoint
automatically in the worst case scenario only.

By the way, do we just need to call checkpoint here including FG_GC as well?

1832
1833         if (gc_type == BG_GC && has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, 0, 0)) {
1834                 /*
1835                  * For example, if there are many prefree_segments below given
1836                  * threshold, we can make them free by checkpoint. Then, we
1837                  * secure free segments which doesn't need fggc any more.
1838                  */
1839                 if (prefree_segments(sbi)) {
1840                         ret = f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
1841                         if (ret)
1842                                 goto stop;
1843                 }
1844                 if (has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, 0, 0))
1845                         gc_type = FG_GC;
1846         }

> 
> One other concern is for those path as below:
> - disable_checkpoint
> - ioc_gc
> - ioc_gc_range
> - ioc_resize
> ...

I think the upper caller should decide to call checkpoint, if they want to
reclaim the prefree likewise f2fs_disable_checkpoint.

> 
> We've passed gc_type as FG_GC, but the demand here is to migrate block in time,
> rather than dirtying blocks, and callers don't expect checkpoint in f2fs_gc(),
> instead the callers will do the checkpoit as it needs.
> 
> That means it's better to decouple FG_GC and write_checkpoint behavior, so I
> added another parameter .reclaim_space to just let f2fs_balance_fs() to trigger
> checkpoit in the end of f2fs_gc().

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > +	} else if (gc_type == FG_GC) {
> > +		/* FG_GC stops GC by skip_count */
> >   		if (sbi->skipped_gc_rwsem)
> >   			skipped_round++;
> >   		round++;
> >   		if (skipped_round > MAX_SKIP_GC_COUNT &&
> > -				skipped_round * 2 >= round) {
> > -			ret = f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
> > -			goto stop;
> > -		}
> > +				skipped_round * 2 >= round)
> > +			stop_gc = true;
> >   	}
> >   	__get_secs_required(sbi, NULL, &upper_secs, NULL);
> > @@ -1901,12 +1898,13 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> >   				prefree_segments(sbi)) {
> >   		ret = f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
> >   		if (ret)
> > -			goto stop;
> > +			stop_gc = true;
> >   	}
> >   go_gc_more:
> > -	segno = NULL_SEGNO;
> > -	goto gc_more;
> > -
> > +	if (!stop_gc) {
> > +		segno = NULL_SEGNO;
> > +		goto gc_more;
> > +	}
> >   stop:
> >   	SIT_I(sbi)->last_victim[ALLOC_NEXT] = 0;
> >   	SIT_I(sbi)->last_victim[FLUSH_DEVICE] = gc_control->victim_segno;


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

  reply	other threads:[~2023-04-05 15:56 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-03-24  7:10 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix to trigger a checkpoint in the end of foreground garbage collection Chao Yu
2023-04-03 18:13 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-04 10:46   ` Chao Yu
2023-04-04 21:39 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-05  2:02   ` Chao Yu
2023-04-05 15:55     ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2023-04-10 13:52       ` Chao Yu
2023-04-10 23:21         ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-13  9:15           ` Chao Yu
2023-04-13 15:56             ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-13 15:58               ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-13 19:25                 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2023-04-18 15:51                   ` 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=ZC2aA+i5+HpdJ6M2@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).