Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1720658 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

Started byYunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
First post2017-08-26 15:00 +0200
Last post2017-08-29 12:10 +0200
Articles 4 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com> - 2017-08-26 15:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active  segments Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> - 2017-08-28 12:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active  segments Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com> - 2017-08-28 15:30 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active  segments Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> - 2017-08-29 12:10 +0200

#1720658 — [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

FromYunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
Date2017-08-26 15:00 +0200
Subject[PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments
Message-ID<uiIQV-1jf-17@gated-at.bofh.it>
1. write file A with 5 blocks to current empty active segment
2. remove file A
3. write checkpoint
4. write file B with 507 blocks to the same active segment

If file B is alive all the time, the blocks used by file A will never be
discarded. So current active segment should also be treated as a candidate
for small discards.

Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 8375257..a2e7c8f 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -1339,7 +1339,9 @@ static bool add_discard_addrs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc,
 		return false;
 
 	if (!force) {
-		if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) || !se->valid_blocks ||
+		if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) ||
+			(!se->valid_blocks &&
+			!IS_CURSEG(sbi, cpc->trim_start)) ||
 			SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->nr_discards >=
 				SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->max_discards)
 			return false;
-- 
1.8.5.2

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1721464 — Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

FromChao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Date2017-08-28 12:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments
Message-ID<ujp9x-4iA-45@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1720658
On 2017/8/26 20:49, Yunlong Song wrote:
> 1. write file A with 5 blocks to current empty active segment
> 2. remove file A
> 3. write checkpoint
> 4. write file B with 507 blocks to the same active segment
> 
> If file B is alive all the time, the blocks used by file A will never be
> discarded. So current active segment should also be treated as a candidate
> for small discards.

I don't think that would be a big issue, since there will not be any freezing
log headers, once log header moves, later invalid blocks could be discarded.

Thanks,

> 
> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index 8375257..a2e7c8f 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -1339,7 +1339,9 @@ static bool add_discard_addrs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc,
>  		return false;
>  
>  	if (!force) {
> -		if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) || !se->valid_blocks ||
> +		if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) ||
> +			(!se->valid_blocks &&
> +			!IS_CURSEG(sbi, cpc->trim_start)) ||
>  			SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->nr_discards >=
>  				SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->max_discards)
>  			return false;
>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1721622 — Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

FromYunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
Date2017-08-28 15:30 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments
Message-ID<ujsh6-665-45@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1721464
How? Can the invalid blocks of file A be discarded, if file B is alive 
all the time and fggc_threshold is 507 ?

On 2017/8/28 17:59, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/8/26 20:49, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> 1. write file A with 5 blocks to current empty active segment
>> 2. remove file A
>> 3. write checkpoint
>> 4. write file B with 507 blocks to the same active segment
>>
>> If file B is alive all the time, the blocks used by file A will never be
>> discarded. So current active segment should also be treated as a candidate
>> for small discards.
> I don't think that would be a big issue, since there will not be any freezing
> log headers, once log header moves, later invalid blocks could be discarded.
>
> Thanks,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> index 8375257..a2e7c8f 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> @@ -1339,7 +1339,9 @@ static bool add_discard_addrs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc,
>>   		return false;
>>   
>>   	if (!force) {
>> -		if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) || !se->valid_blocks ||
>> +		if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) ||
>> +			(!se->valid_blocks &&
>> +			!IS_CURSEG(sbi, cpc->trim_start)) ||
>>   			SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->nr_discards >=
>>   				SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->max_discards)
>>   			return false;
>>
>
> .
>

-- 
Thanks,
Yunlong Song

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1722297 — Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

FromChao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Date2017-08-29 12:10 +0200
SubjectRe: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments
Message-ID<ujLD4-1hQ-21@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1721622
On 2017/8/28 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote:
> How? Can the invalid blocks of file A be discarded, if file B is alive 
> all the time and fggc_threshold is 507 ?

As I traced, with small discard, we scan discard candidates from all dirty
segments which also include current segment, so seems we don't need to wait log
header moving on.

Thanks,

> 
> On 2017/8/28 17:59, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/8/26 20:49, Yunlong Song wrote:
>>> 1. write file A with 5 blocks to current empty active segment
>>> 2. remove file A
>>> 3. write checkpoint
>>> 4. write file B with 507 blocks to the same active segment
>>>
>>> If file B is alive all the time, the blocks used by file A will never be
>>> discarded. So current active segment should also be treated as a candidate
>>> for small discards.
>> I don't think that would be a big issue, since there will not be any freezing
>> log headers, once log header moves, later invalid blocks could be discarded.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
>>>   1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> index 8375257..a2e7c8f 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> @@ -1339,7 +1339,9 @@ static bool add_discard_addrs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc,
>>>   		return false;
>>>   
>>>   	if (!force) {
>>> -		if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) || !se->valid_blocks ||
>>> +		if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) ||
>>> +			(!se->valid_blocks &&
>>> +			!IS_CURSEG(sbi, cpc->trim_start)) ||
>>>   			SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->nr_discards >=
>>>   				SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->max_discards)
>>>   			return false;
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web