linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix heap mode to reset it back

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 30 Jan 2018 17:39:46 -0800
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
Cc:     Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>, chao@...nel.org,
        yunlong.song@...oud.com, miaoxie@...wei.com,
        bintian.wang@...wei.com, shengyong1@...wei.com,
        heyunlei@...wei.com, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix heap mode to reset it back

On 01/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/1/29 16:31, Yunlong Song wrote:
> > The old commit allocates hot data & nodes in the beginning of partition 
> > both for heap and
> > noheap mode. But from the commit message, the heap mode should be like 
> > before, i.e.,
> > allocate hot data & nodes from curseg to left.
> 
> Let's ping Jaegeuk to check that, :)

Yup, I missed to add this condition. :)

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > On 2018/1/29 16:12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Hi Yunlong,
> >>
> >> On 2018/1/29 11:37, Yunlong Song wrote:
> >>> Commit 7a20b8a61eff81bdb7097a578752a74860e9d142 ("f2fs: allocate node
> >>> and hot data in the beginning of partition") introduces another mount
> >>> option, heap, to reset it back. But it does not do anything for heap
> >>> mode, so fix it.
> >> I think Jaegeuk did three things in that patch:
> >> a) add missing heap mount option handling in ->show_options.
> >> b) set noheap by default.
> >> c) change allocation policy to the one that allocate hotdata & nodes in the
> >> front of main are intensively.
> >>
> >> They could be separated, independent, and I don't see such intention that
> >> we can only use c) the new introduced allocation policy in noheap mode.
> >>
> >> Anyway, I think Jaegeuk can help to double check that.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>
> >>> ---
> >>>   fs/f2fs/gc.c      | 5 +++--
> >>>   fs/f2fs/segment.c | 3 ++-
> >>>   2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>> index aa720cc..b9d93fd 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>> @@ -191,8 +191,9 @@ static void select_policy(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int gc_type,
> >>>   	if (gc_type != FG_GC && p->max_search > sbi->max_victim_search)
> >>>   		p->max_search = sbi->max_victim_search;
> >>>   
> >>> -	/* let's select beginning hot/small space first */
> >>> -	if (type == CURSEG_HOT_DATA || IS_NODESEG(type))
> >>> +	/* let's select beginning hot/small space first in no_heap mode*/
> >>> +	if (test_opt(sbi, NOHEAP) &&
> >>> +		(type == CURSEG_HOT_DATA || IS_NODESEG(type)))
> >>>   		p->offset = 0;
> >>>   	else
> >>>   		p->offset = SIT_I(sbi)->last_victim[p->gc_mode];
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>> index e5739ce..77a48c4 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>> @@ -2167,7 +2167,8 @@ static unsigned int __get_next_segno(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
> >>>   	if (sbi->segs_per_sec != 1)
> >>>   		return CURSEG_I(sbi, type)->segno;
> >>>   
> >>> -	if (type == CURSEG_HOT_DATA || IS_NODESEG(type))
> >>> +	if (test_opt(sbi, NOHEAP) &&
> >>> +		(type == CURSEG_HOT_DATA || IS_NODESEG(type)))
> >>>   		return 0;
> >>>   
> >>>   	if (SIT_I(sbi)->last_victim[ALLOC_NEXT])
> >>>
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> >