| 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: <1748ac88-3415-0431-33e7-91cd1cff946c@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 20:26:04 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
yuchao0@...wei.com, yunlong.song@...oud.com
Cc: miaoxie@...wei.com, bintian.wang@...wei.com,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: add cur_reserved_blocks to support soft block
reservation
On 2017/10/25 18:02, Yunlong Song wrote:
> ping...
I've replied in this thread, check your email list please, or you can check the
comments in below link:
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/9909407/
Anyway, see comments below.
>
> On 2017/8/18 23:09, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> This patch adds cur_reserved_blocks to extend reserved_blocks sysfs
>> interface to be soft threshold, which allows user configure it exceeding
>> current available user space. To ensure there is enough space for
>> supporting system's activation, this patch does not set the reserved space
>> to the configured reserved_blocks value at once, instead, it safely
>> increase cur_reserved_blocks in dev_valid_block(,node)_count to only take
>> up the blocks which are just obsoleted.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@...wei.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
>> ---
>> Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs | 3 ++-
>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 13 +++++++++++--
>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 3 ++-
>> fs/f2fs/sysfs.c | 15 +++++++++++++--
>> 4 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs
>> index 11b7f4e..ba282ca 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs
>> +++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs
>> @@ -138,7 +138,8 @@ What: /sys/fs/f2fs/<disk>/reserved_blocks
>> Date: June 2017
>> Contact: "Chao Yu" <yuchao0@...wei.com>
>> Description:
>> - Controls current reserved blocks in system.
>> + Controls current reserved blocks in system, the threshold
>> + is soft, it could exceed current available user space.
>> What: /sys/fs/f2fs/<disk>/gc_urgent
>> Date: August 2017
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> index 2f20b6b..84ccbdc 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> @@ -1041,6 +1041,7 @@ struct f2fs_sb_info {
>> block_t discard_blks; /* discard command candidats */
>> block_t last_valid_block_count; /* for recovery */
>> block_t reserved_blocks; /* configurable reserved blocks */
>> + block_t cur_reserved_blocks; /* current reserved blocks */
>> u32 s_next_generation; /* for NFS support */
>> @@ -1515,7 +1516,8 @@ static inline int inc_valid_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> sbi->total_valid_block_count += (block_t)(*count);
>> - avail_user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count - sbi->reserved_blocks;
>> + avail_user_block_count = sbi->user_block_count -
>> + sbi->cur_reserved_blocks;
>> if (unlikely(sbi->total_valid_block_count > avail_user_block_count)) {
>> diff = sbi->total_valid_block_count - avail_user_block_count;
>> *count -= diff;
>> @@ -1549,6 +1551,10 @@ static inline void dec_valid_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, sbi->total_valid_block_count < (block_t) count);
>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, inode->i_blocks < sectors);
>> sbi->total_valid_block_count -= (block_t)count;
>> + if (sbi->reserved_blocks &&
>> + sbi->reserved_blocks != sbi->cur_reserved_blocks)
It's redundent check here...
>> + sbi->cur_reserved_blocks = min(sbi->reserved_blocks,
>> + sbi->cur_reserved_blocks + count);
>> spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> f2fs_i_blocks_write(inode, count, false, true);
>> }
>> @@ -1695,7 +1701,7 @@ static inline int inc_valid_node_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> valid_block_count = sbi->total_valid_block_count + 1;
>> - if (unlikely(valid_block_count + sbi->reserved_blocks >
>> + if (unlikely(valid_block_count + sbi->cur_reserved_blocks >
>> sbi->user_block_count)) {
>> spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> goto enospc;
>> @@ -1738,6 +1744,9 @@ static inline void dec_valid_node_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> sbi->total_valid_node_count--;
>> sbi->total_valid_block_count--;
>> + if (sbi->reserved_blocks &&
>> + sbi->reserved_blocks != sbi->cur_reserved_blocks)
Checking low boundary is more safe here.
>> + sbi->cur_reserved_blocks++;
>> spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> index 4c1bdcb..16a805f 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> @@ -957,7 +957,7 @@ static int f2fs_statfs(struct dentry *dentry, struct kstatfs *buf)
>> buf->f_blocks = total_count - start_count;
>> buf->f_bfree = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) + ovp_count;
>> buf->f_bavail = user_block_count - valid_user_blocks(sbi) -
>> - sbi->reserved_blocks;
>> + sbi->cur_reserved_blocks;
>> avail_node_count = sbi->total_node_count - F2FS_RESERVED_NODE_NUM;
>> @@ -2411,6 +2411,7 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int silent)
>> le64_to_cpu(sbi->ckpt->valid_block_count);
>> sbi->last_valid_block_count = sbi->total_valid_block_count;
>> sbi->reserved_blocks = 0;
>> + sbi->cur_reserved_blocks = 0;
>> for (i = 0; i < NR_INODE_TYPE; i++) {
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sbi->inode_list[i]);
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c b/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
>> index a1be5ac..75c37bb 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
>> @@ -104,12 +104,22 @@ static ssize_t features_show(struct f2fs_attr *a,
>> return len;
>> }
>> +static ssize_t f2fs_reserved_blocks_show(struct f2fs_attr *a,
>> + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, char *buf)
>> +{
>> + return snprintf(buf, PAGE_SIZE, "expected: %u\ncurrent: %u\n",
>> + sbi->reserved_blocks, sbi->cur_reserved_blocks);
>> +}
>> +
>> static ssize_t f2fs_sbi_show(struct f2fs_attr *a,
>> struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, char *buf)
>> {
>> unsigned char *ptr = NULL;
>> unsigned int *ui;
>> + if (a->struct_type == RESERVED_BLOCKS)
>> + return f2fs_reserved_blocks_show(a, sbi, buf);
>> +
>> ptr = __struct_ptr(sbi, a->struct_type);
>> if (!ptr)
>> return -EINVAL;
>> @@ -143,12 +153,13 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_sbi_store(struct f2fs_attr *a,
>> #endif
>> if (a->struct_type == RESERVED_BLOCKS) {
>> spin_lock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> - if ((unsigned long)sbi->total_valid_block_count + t >
>> - (unsigned long)sbi->user_block_count) {
>> + if (t > (unsigned long)sbi->user_block_count) {
>> spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> return -EINVAL;
>> }
>> *ui = t;
>> + if (t < (unsigned long)sbi->cur_reserved_blocks)
>> + sbi->cur_reserved_blocks = t;
No, for 't < cur_reserved_blocks' case, cur_reserved_blocks will out of update
even if there is enough free space. You know, for soft block resevation, we need
to reserve blocks as many as possible, making free space being zero suddenly is
possible.
Thanks,
>> spin_unlock(&sbi->stat_lock);
>> return count;
>> }
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists