Re: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: add extent cache base on rb-tree

Jaegeuk Kim
2014-12-23T19:24:56Z

On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 05:35:11PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Changman,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Changman Lee [mailto:cm224.lee@samsung.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, December 23, 2014 12:31 PM
> > To: Chao Yu
> > Cc: 'Jaegeuk Kim'; linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: add extent cache base on rb-tree
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 03:10:30PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > Hi Changman,
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Changman Lee [mailto:cm224.lee@samsung.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 10:03 AM
> > > > To: Chao Yu
> > > > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim; linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
> > > > Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: add extent cache base on rb-tree
> > > >
> > > > Hi Yu,
> > > >
> > > > Good approach.
> > >
> > > Thank you. :)
> > >
> > > > As you know, however, f2fs breaks extent itself due to COW.
> > >
> > > Yes, and sometimes f2fs use IPU when override writing, in this condition,
> > > by using this approach we can cache more contiguous mapping extent for better
> > > performance.
> > >
> > > > Unlike other filesystem like btrfs, minimum extent of f2fs could have 4KB granularity.
> > > > So we would have lots of extents per inode and it could lead to overhead
> > > > to manage extents.
> > >
> > > Agree, the more number of extents are growing in one inode, the more memory
> > > pressure and longer latency operating in rb-tree we are facing.
> > > IMO, to solve this problem, we'd better to add limitation or shrink ability into
> > > extent cache:
> > > 1.limit extent number per inode with the value set from sysfs and discard extent
> > > from inode's extent lru list if we touch the limitation; (e.g. in FAT, max number
> > > of mapping extent per inode is fixed: 8)
> > > 2.add all extents of inodes into a global lru list, we will try to shrink this list
> > > if we're facing memory pressure.
> > >
> > > How do you think? or any better ideas are welcome. :)
> > >
> >
> > I think both of them are considerable options.
> > How about adding extent to inode selected by user using ioctl or xattr?
> > In the case of read most files having large size, user could get a benefit
> > surely although they are seperated some pieces.
>
> Yes, I agree, I prefer ioctl more than xattr, as xattr will take over some extra
> space of inode, and also new added xattr name may conflict with exist extent xattr.
>
> Anyway, this will provide more flexible management of extent cache to users of f2fs.

Oh, well.
This is not a good way, since we cannot guide users to call another system call
for their files.

Instead, it needs to check fadvise hints or RDONLY in the open flag?

Thanks,

>
> Thank you for your idea!
>
> Regards,
> Yu
>
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > > >
> > > > Anyway, mount option could be alternative for this patch.
> > >
> > > Yes, will do.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yu
> > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 06:49:29PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > Now f2fs have page-block mapping cache which can cache only one extent mapping
> > > > > between contiguous logical address and physical address.
> > > > > Normally, this design will work well because f2fs will expand coverage area of
> > > > > the mapping extent when we write forward sequentially. But when we write data
> > > > > randomly in Out-Place-Update mode, the extent will be shorten and hardly be
> > > > > expanded for most time as following reasons:
> > > > > 1.The short part of extent will be discarded if we break contiguous mapping in
> > > > > the middle of extent.
> > > > > 2.The new mapping will be added into mapping cache only at head or tail of the
> > > > > extent.
> > > > > 3.We will drop the extent cache when the extent became very fragmented.
> > > > > 4.We will not update the extent with mapping which we get from readpages or
> > > > > readpage.
> > > > >
> > > > > To solve above problems, this patch adds extent cache base on rb-tree like other
> > > > > filesystems (e.g.: ext4/btrfs) in f2fs. By this way, f2fs can support another
> > > > > more effective cache between dnode page cache and disk. It will supply high hit
> > > > > ratio in the cache with fewer memory when dnode page cache are reclaimed in
> > > > > environment of low memory.
> > > > >
> > > > > Todo:
> > > > > *introduce mount option for extent cache.
> > > > > *add shrink ability for extent cache.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@samsung.com>
> > > > > ---
> > >