| 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: <00c401d035e3$73c40960$5b4c1c20$@samsung.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 09:32:33 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@...sung.com>
To: 'Changman Lee' <cm224.lee@...sung.com>
Cc: 'Changman Lee' <cm224.lee@...il.com>,
'Jaegeuk Kim' <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: RE: [f2fs-dev][RFC PATCH 06/10] f2fs: add core functions for rb-tree
extent cache
Hi Changman,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Changman Lee [mailto:cm224.lee@...sung.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2015 6:26 AM
> To: Chao Yu
> Cc: 'Changman Lee'; 'Jaegeuk Kim'; linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net;
> linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev][RFC PATCH 06/10] f2fs: add core functions for rb-tree extent cache
>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 04:41:17PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > Hi Changman,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Changman Lee [mailto:cm224.lee@...il.com]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2015 11:06 PM
> > > To: Chao Yu
> > > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim; Changman Lee; linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net;
> > > linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
> > > Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev][RFC PATCH 06/10] f2fs: add core functions for rb-tree extent cache
> > >
> > > Hi Chao,
> > >
> > > Great works. :)
> >
> > Thanks! :)
> >
> > >
> > > 2015-01-12 16:14 GMT+09:00 Chao Yu <chao2.yu@...sung.com>:
> > > > This patch adds core functions including slab cache init function and
> > > > init/lookup/update/shrink/destroy function for rb-tree based extent cache.
> > > >
> > > > Thank Jaegeuk Kim and Changman Lee as they gave much suggestion about detail
> > > > design and implementation of extent cache.
> > > >
> > > > Todo:
> > > > * add a cached_ei into struct extent_tree for a quick recent cache.
> > > > * register rb-based extent cache shrink with mm shrink interface.
> > > > * disable dir inode's extent cache.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@...sung.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Changman Lee <cm224.lee@...sung.com>
> >
> > If you do not object, I'd like to keep this as lots of details and ideas are from
> > you and Jaegeuk.
> >
>
> I have no objection.
>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/f2fs/data.c | 458 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > fs/f2fs/node.c | 9 +-
> > > > 2 files changed, 466 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > index 4f5b871e..bf8c5eb 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > @@ -25,6 +25,9 @@
> > > > #include "trace.h"
> > > > #include <trace/events/f2fs.h>
> > > >
> > >
> > > ~ snip ~
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > +static void f2fs_update_extent_tree(struct inode *inode, pgoff_t fofs,
> > > > + block_t blkaddr)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
> > > > + nid_t ino = inode->i_ino;
> > > > + struct extent_tree *et;
> > > > + struct extent_node *en = NULL, *en1 = NULL, *en2 = NULL, *en3 = NULL;
> > > > + struct extent_node *den = NULL;
> > > > + struct extent_info *pei;
> > > > + struct extent_info ei;
> > > > + unsigned int endofs;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (is_inode_flag_set(F2FS_I(inode), FI_NO_EXTENT))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > +retry:
> > > > + down_write(&sbi->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > + et = radix_tree_lookup(&sbi->extent_tree_root, ino);
> > > > + if (!et) {
> > >
> > > We've already made some useful functions.
> > > How about using f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc and f2fs_radix_tree_insert ?
> >
> > IMO, we'd better to use original function kmem_cache_alloc and radix_tree_insert,
> > because if we use f2fs_{kmem_cache_alloc, radix_tree_insert}, we may loop in these
> > functions without releasing extent_tree_lock lock when OOM, so it will block lock
> > grabbers for long time which we do not wish to see.
> >
>
> I see. If so, let's use cond_resched() in front of goto retry after up_write.
Ah, yes, I will do that.
> And also look into kmem_cache_alloc in __insert_extent_tree, please.
I notice the problem, I'd like return NULL in __insert_extent_tree if we fail to
alloc extent_node space with extent_node_slab.
Thank you for reminding me this!
Regards,
Yu
>
> > >
> > > > + et = kmem_cache_alloc(extent_tree_slab, GFP_ATOMIC);
> > > > + if (!et) {
> > > > + up_write(&sbi->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > + goto retry;
> > > > + }
> > > > + if (radix_tree_insert(&sbi->extent_tree_root, ino, et)) {
> > > > + up_write(&sbi->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > + kmem_cache_free(extent_tree_slab, et);
> > > > + goto retry;
> > > > + }
> > > > + memset(et, 0, sizeof(struct extent_tree));
> > > > + et->ino = ino;
> > > > + et->root = RB_ROOT;
> > > > + rwlock_init(&et->lock);
> > > > + atomic_set(&et->refcount, 0);
> > > > + et->count = 0;
> > > > + sbi->total_ext_tree++;
> > > > + }
> > > > + atomic_inc(&et->refcount);
> > > > + up_write(&sbi->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > ~ snip ~
> > >
> > > > +
> > > > + write_unlock(&et->lock);
> > > > + atomic_dec(&et->refcount);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > > > +void f2fs_shrink_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink)
> > > > +{
> > > > + struct extent_tree *treevec[EXT_TREE_VEC_SIZE];
> > > > + struct extent_node *en, *tmp;
> > > > + unsigned long ino = F2FS_ROOT_INO(sbi);
> > > > + struct radix_tree_iter iter;
> > > > + void **slot;
> > > > + unsigned int found;
> > > > + unsigned int node_cnt = 0, tree_cnt = 0;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (available_free_memory(sbi, EXTENT_CACHE))
> > > > + return;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock(&sbi->extent_lock);
> > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(en, tmp, &sbi->extent_list, list) {
> > > > + if (!nr_shrink--)
> > > > + break;
> > > > + list_del_init(&en->list);
> > > > + }
> > > > + spin_unlock(&sbi->extent_lock);
> > > > +
> > >
> > > IMHO, it's expensive to retrieve all extent_tree to free extent_node
> > > that list_empty() is true.
> >
> > Yes, it will cause heavy overhead to release extent_node in extent cache
> > which has huge number of extent_node.
> >
> > > Is there any idea to improve this?
> > > For example, if each extent_node has its extent_root, it would be more
> > > fast by not to retrieve all trees.
> > > Of course, however, it uses more memory.
> >
> > I think your solution is a good way to improve the performance.
> >
> > >
> > > But, I think that your patchset might just as well be merged because
> > > patches are well made and it's clearly separated with mount option.
> >
> > I hope so.
> >
> > > In the next time, we could improve this.
> >
> > There are also some thoughts in *todo* list, these can be added to developing list
> > if this patch set is applied.
>
> Cheers,
> Changman
>
> >
> > Thanks for your review and suggestion! :)
> >
> > Regards,
> > Yu
> >
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Changman
> > >
> > > > + down_read(&sbi->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > + while ((found = radix_tree_gang_lookup(&sbi->extent_tree_root,
> > > > + (void **)treevec, ino, EXT_TREE_VEC_SIZE))) {
> > > > + unsigned i;
> > > > +
> > > > + ino = treevec[found - 1]->ino + 1;
> > > > + for (i = 0; i < found; i++) {
> > > > + struct extent_tree *et = treevec[i];
> > > > +
> > > > + atomic_inc(&et->refcount);
> > > > + write_lock(&et->lock);
> > > > + node_cnt += __free_extent_tree(sbi, et, false);
> > > > + write_unlock(&et->lock);
> > > > + atomic_dec(&et->refcount);
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + up_read(&sbi->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > +
> > > > + down_write(&sbi->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > + radix_tree_for_each_slot(slot, &sbi->extent_tree_root, &iter,
> > > > + F2FS_ROOT_INO(sbi)) {
> > > > + struct extent_tree *et = (struct extent_tree *)*slot;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (!atomic_read(&et->refcount) && !et->count) {
> > > > + radix_tree_delete(&sbi->extent_tree_root, et->ino);
> > > > + kmem_cache_free(extent_tree_slab, et);
> > > > + sbi->total_ext_tree--;
> > > > + tree_cnt++;
> > > > + }
> > > > + }
> > > > + up_write(&sbi->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > +}
> > > > +
> > >
> > > ~ snip ~
> > >
> > > > --
> > > > 2.2.1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > 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/
--
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