| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20140730010821.GA98706@jaegeuk-mac02>
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2014 18:08:21 -0700
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To: Changman Lee <cm224.lee@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 07/11] f2fs: enable in-place-update for
fdatasync
On Wed, Jul 30, 2014 at 08:54:55AM +0900, Changman Lee wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 05:22:15AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Changman,
> >
> > On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 09:41:11AM +0900, Changman Lee wrote:
> > > Hi Jaegeuk,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Jul 25, 2014 at 03:47:21PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > This patch enforces in-place-updates only when fdatasync is requested.
> > > > If we adopt this in-place-updates for the fdatasync, we can skip to write the
> > > > recovery information.
> > >
> > > But, as you know, random write occurs when changing into in-place-updates.
> > > It will degrade write performance. Is there any case in-place-updates is
> > > better, except recovery or high utilization?
> >
> > As I described, you can easily imagine, if users requested small amount of data
> > writes with fdatasync, we should do data writes + node writes.
> > But, if we can do in-place-update, we don't need to write node blocks.
> > Surely it triggers random writes, however, the amount of data is preety small
> > and the device handles them very fast by its inside cache, so that it can
> > enhance the performance.
> >
> > Thanks,
>
> Partially agree. Sometimes, I see that SSR shows lower performance than
> IPU. One of the reasons might be node writes.
What did you mean? That's why I consider IPU eagarly instead of SSR and LFS
under the very strict cases.
> Anyway, if so, we should know total dirty pages for fdatasync and it's very
> tunable according to a random write performance of device.
Agreed. We can do that either by comparing the number of dirty pages,
additional data/node writes, and cost of checkpoint at the same time.
And there is another thing is that we need to consider the number of
waiting time for end_io.
I'll look into this at some time.
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> > > > fs/f2fs/file.c | 7 +++++++
> > > > fs/f2fs/segment.h | 4 ++++
> > > > 3 files changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > index ab36025..8f8685e 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > > @@ -998,6 +998,7 @@ enum {
> > > > FI_INLINE_DATA, /* used for inline data*/
> > > > FI_APPEND_WRITE, /* inode has appended data */
> > > > FI_UPDATE_WRITE, /* inode has in-place-update data */
> > > > + FI_NEED_IPU, /* used fo ipu for fdatasync */
> > > > };
> > > >
> > > > static inline void set_inode_flag(struct f2fs_inode_info *fi, int flag)
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > index 121689a..e339856 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > @@ -127,11 +127,18 @@ int f2fs_sync_file(struct file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end, int datasync)
> > > > return 0;
> > > >
> > > > trace_f2fs_sync_file_enter(inode);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* if fdatasync is triggered, let's do in-place-update */
> > > > + if (datasync)
> > > > + set_inode_flag(fi, FI_NEED_IPU);
> > > > +
> > > > ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(inode->i_mapping, start, end);
> > > > if (ret) {
> > > > trace_f2fs_sync_file_exit(inode, need_cp, datasync, ret);
> > > > return ret;
> > > > }
> > > > + if (datasync)
> > > > + clear_inode_flag(fi, FI_NEED_IPU);
> > > >
> > > > /*
> > > > * if there is no written data, don't waste time to write recovery info.
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > > > index ee5c75e..55973f7 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > > > @@ -486,6 +486,10 @@ static inline bool need_inplace_update(struct inode *inode)
> > > > if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode))
> > > > return false;
> > > >
> > > > + /* this is only set during fdatasync */
> > > > + if (is_inode_flag_set(F2FS_I(inode), FI_NEED_IPU))
> > > > + return true;
> > > > +
> > > > switch (SM_I(sbi)->ipu_policy) {
> > > > case F2FS_IPU_FORCE:
> > > > return true;
> > > > --
> > > > 1.8.5.2 (Apple Git-48)
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Want fast and easy access to all the code in your enterprise? Index and
> > > > search up to 200,000 lines of code with a free copy of Black Duck
> > > > Code Sight - the same software that powers the world's largest code
> > > > search on Ohloh, the Black Duck Open Hub! Try it now.
> > > > http://p.sf.net/sfu/bds
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > > > Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists