| 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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2017 18:03:23 +0800
From: Fan Li <fanofcode.li@...sung.com>
To: 'Chao Yu' <chao@...nel.org>, 'Jaegeuk Kim' <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: modify the procedure of scan free nid
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chao Yu [mailto:chao@...nel.org]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 10:32 PM
> To: Fan Li; 'Jaegeuk Kim'
> Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org; linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: modify the procedure of scan free nid
>
> On 2017/10/31 21:37, Fan Li wrote:
> > In current version, we preserve 8 pages of nat blocks as free nids,
> > build bitmaps for it and use them to allocate nids until its number
> > drops below NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK.
> >
> > After that, we have a problem, scan_free_nid_bits will scan the same
> > 8 pages trying to find more free nids, but in most cases the free nids
> > in these bitmaps are already in free list, scan them won't get us any
> > new nids.
> > Further more, after scan_free_nid_bits, the search is over if
> > nid_cnt[FREE_NID] != 0.
> > It causes that we scan the same pages over and over again, yet no new
> > free nids are found until nid_cnt[FREE_NID]==0.
> >
> > This patch mark the range where new free nids could exist and keep
> > scan for free nids until nid_cnt[FREE_NID] >= NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK.
> > The new vairable first_scan_block marks the start of the range, it's
> > initialized with NEW_ADDR, which means all free nids before
> > next_scan_nid are already in free list; and use next_scan_nid as the
> > end of the range since all free nids which are scanned must be smaller
> > next_scan_nid.
> >
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Fan li <fanofcode.li@...sung.com>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> > fs/f2fs/node.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----
> > 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h index e0ef31c..ae1cf91
> > 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > @@ -705,6 +705,7 @@ struct f2fs_nm_info {
> > nid_t max_nid; /* maximum possible node ids */
> > nid_t available_nids; /* # of available node ids */
> > nid_t next_scan_nid; /* the next nid to be scanned */
> > + block_t first_scan_block; /* the first NAT block to be scanned */
>
> As we are traveling bitmap, so how about using smaller granularity for tracking last-scanned-position. like:
>
> unsigned next_bitmap_pos; ?
>
Yes, I think it's a good idea, but original code scans nids by blocks, if I change that, I need to change some
other details too, and before that, I want to make sure this idea of patch is right.
I also have some ideas about it, if that's OK, I tend to submit other patches to implement them.
> > unsigned int ram_thresh; /* control the memory footprint */
> > unsigned int ra_nid_pages; /* # of nid pages to be readaheaded */
> > unsigned int dirty_nats_ratio; /* control dirty nats ratio threshold */
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c index 3d0d1be..7834097
> > 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > @@ -1950,10 +1950,23 @@ static void scan_free_nid_bits(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> > struct curseg_info *curseg = CURSEG_I(sbi, CURSEG_HOT_DATA);
> > struct f2fs_journal *journal = curseg->journal;
> > unsigned int i, idx;
> > + unsigned int max_blocks = NAT_BLOCK_OFFSET(nm_i->next_scan_nid);
> >
> > - down_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> > + /* every free nid in blocks scanned previously is in the free list */
> > + if (nm_i->first_scan_block == NEW_ADDR)
>
> How about using nm_i->max_nid as no more free nids in bitmap?
>
For now, I use the block as the unit of variable first_scan_block, for the same reason above,
I tend to change it in another patch.
> > + return;
> >
> > - for (i = 0; i < nm_i->nat_blocks; i++) {
> > + /*
> > + * TODO: "next_scan_nid == 0" means after searching every nat block,
> > + * we still can't find enough free nids, there may not be any
> > + * more nid left to be found, we should stop at somewhere
> > + * instead of going through these all over again.
> > + */
> > + if (max_blocks == 0)
> > + max_blocks = nm_i->nat_blocks;
> > +
> > + down_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> > + for (i = nm_i->first_scan_block; i < max_blocks; i++) {
>
> Free nids could be set free after nodes were truncated & checkpoint, if we start from first_scan_block, we will miss some free
nids.
>
This is the part I'm not sure. To my understanding, after nodes were truncated, the nats will be cached as dirty nats,
the IS_CHECKPOINTED flag will be removed from them, as a result, in original code these nats will not be added to free list in
scan, so I also didn't add these nats in this patch, but I don't know why it's designed this way in the first place.
Please tell me what's wrong about my understanding or why it's like this.
And what do you mean by the free nid which could be set free after checkpoint?
> Thanks,
>
> > if (!test_bit_le(i, nm_i->nat_block_bitmap))
> > continue;
> > if (!nm_i->free_nid_count[i])
> > @@ -1967,10 +1980,13 @@ static void scan_free_nid_bits(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> > nid = i * NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK + idx;
> > add_free_nid(sbi, nid, true);
> >
> > - if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] >= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> > + if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] >= MAX_FREE_NIDS) {
> > + nm_i->first_scan_block = i;
> > goto out;
> > + }
> > }
> > }
> > + nm_i->first_scan_block = NEW_ADDR;
> > out:
> > down_read(&curseg->journal_rwsem);
> > for (i = 0; i < nats_in_cursum(journal); i++) { @@ -2010,7 +2026,7
> > @@ static void __build_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool sync, bool mount)
> > /* try to find free nids in free_nid_bitmap */
> > scan_free_nid_bits(sbi);
> >
> > - if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID])
> > + if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] >= NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK)
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -2163,6 +2179,7 @@ int try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink)
> > struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i = NM_I(sbi);
> > struct free_nid *i, *next;
> > int nr = nr_shrink;
> > + nid_t min_nid = nm_i->max_nid;
> >
> > if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> > return 0;
> > @@ -2176,11 +2193,15 @@ int try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink)
> > nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> > break;
> >
> > + if (i->nid < min_nid)
> > + min_nid = i->nid;
> > __remove_free_nid(sbi, i, FREE_NID);
> > kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i);
> > nr_shrink--;
> > }
> > spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock);
> > + if (min_nid != nm_i->max_nid)
> > + nm_i->first_scan_block = NAT_BLOCK_OFFSET(min_nid);
>
> Need to update nm_i->first_scan_block during __flush_nat_entry_set?
>
The doubt I have is described in above question.
> Thanks,
>
> > mutex_unlock(&nm_i->build_lock);
> >
> > return nr - nr_shrink;
> > @@ -2674,6 +2695,7 @@ static int init_node_manager(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> > init_rwsem(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> >
> > nm_i->next_scan_nid = le32_to_cpu(sbi->ckpt->next_free_nid);
> > + nm_i->first_scan_block = NEW_ADDR;
> > nm_i->bitmap_size = __bitmap_size(sbi, NAT_BITMAP);
> > version_bitmap = __bitmap_ptr(sbi, NAT_BITMAP);
> > if (!version_bitmap)
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists