linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: give another chance to issue discard with current granularity

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Date:   Fri, 6 Jul 2018 18:10:12 -0700
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To:     Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Cc:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>,
        linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: give another chance to issue discard with
 current granularity

On 07/07, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
> 
> On 2018/7/7 6:49, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/05, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> If discard IOs are blocked by user IO, do not skip to select and issue
> >> discard with lower granularity, retry with current granularity.
> > 
> > We need to stop as soon as possible since user activity comes. Later, discard
> > thread will try it again in another idle time. What's your concern?
> 
> Currently, our implementation is that we will try to issue
> DEF_MAX_DISCARD_REQUEST discards as many as possible in batch, for example:
> 
> If there is 4 discard entry in rb-tree, we will try to issue them by below order
> in batch:
> 
> No.		size		is_idle		op
> #1 discard	2MB		false		skip
> #2 discard	2MB		false		skip
> #3 discard	256KB		true		issue
> #4 discard	16KB		true		issue
> 
> So if is_idle is false temporarily, we can still have chance to issue #3 & #4
> discard in this round once is_idle is flipped?
> 
> But the problem is we skip issue discard with big granularity, so I add this
> patch to do retry with current granularity.
> 
> Do you mean that we need to stop issuing discard immediately once we detect IO
> is busy?

Yes. If we retry to issue discard continuously, it hurts normal IO latencies.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
> >> ---
> >> v2:
> >> - fix deadloop.
> >>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 16 +++++++++++++---
> >>  1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >> index 1f9ae8270f86..6e2b2e717a40 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >> @@ -1191,7 +1191,7 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>  	struct discard_cmd *dc, *tmp;
> >>  	struct blk_plug plug;
> >>  	int i, iter = 0, issued = 0;
> >> -	bool io_interrupted = false;
> >> +	bool io_interrupted = false, end_up = false;
> >>  
> >>  	for (i = MAX_PLIST_NUM - 1; i >= 0; i--) {
> >>  		if (i + 1 < dpolicy->granularity)
> >> @@ -1199,6 +1199,7 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>  		pend_list = &dcc->pend_list[i];
> >>  
> >>  		mutex_lock(&dcc->cmd_lock);
> >> +retry:
> >>  		if (list_empty(pend_list))
> >>  			goto next;
> >>  		if (unlikely(dcc->rbtree_check))
> >> @@ -1217,14 +1218,23 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>  			__submit_discard_cmd(sbi, dpolicy, dc);
> >>  			issued++;
> >>  skip:
> >> -			if (++iter >= dpolicy->max_requests)
> >> +			if (++iter >= dpolicy->max_requests) {
> >> +				end_up = true;
> >>  				break;
> >> +			}
> >>  		}
> >>  		blk_finish_plug(&plug);
> >> +
> >> +		/*
> >> +		 * if discard IO was interrupted by user IOs, give another
> >> +		 * chance to issue discard with current granularity.
> >> +		 */
> >> +		if (io_interrupted && !end_up)
> >> +			goto retry;
> >>  next:
> >>  		mutex_unlock(&dcc->cmd_lock);
> >>  
> >> -		if (iter >= dpolicy->max_requests)
> >> +		if (end_up)
> >>  			break;
> >>  	}
> >>  
> >> -- 
> >> 2.18.0.rc1