| 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: <533fb91e-21af-513e-f587-619498b1f848@huawei.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2017 10:52:00 +0800
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To: Hyunchul Lee <hyc.lee@...il.com>, Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
CC: <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, <kernel-team@....com>,
Hyunchul Lee <cheol.lee@....com>, Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] apply write hints to select the type of segments
On 2017/11/16 8:56, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
>
> On 11/16/2017 01:27 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 11/14, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2017/11/14 12:20, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>> On 11/13, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
>>>>> On 11/13/2017 10:59 AM, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2017/11/13 9:35, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/13/2017 10:26 AM, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2017/11/13 8:24, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/10/2017 03:42 PM, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2017/11/10 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Chao
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/09/2017 06:12 PM, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2017/11/9 13:51, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> From: Hyunchul Lee <cheol.lee@....com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Using write hints[1], applications can inform the life time of the data
>>>>>>>>>>>>> written to devices. and this[2] reported that the write hints patch
>>>>>>>>>>>>> decreased writes in NAND by 25%.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This hints help F2FS to determine the followings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) the segment types where the data will be written.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) the hints that will be passed down to devices with the data of segments.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch set implements the first mapping from write hints to segment types
>>>>>>>>>>>>> as shown below.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hints segment type
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ----- ------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRITE_LIFE_SHORT CURSEG_COLD_DATA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME CURSEG_HOT_DATA
>>>>>>>>>>>>> others CURSEG_WARM_DATA
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The F2FS poliy for hot/cold seperation has precedence over this hints, And
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hints are not applied in in-place update.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could we change to disable IPU if file/inode write hint is existing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I am afraid that this makes side effects. for example, this could cause
>>>>>>>>>>> out-of-place updates even when there are not enough free segments.
>>>>>>>>>>> I can write the patch that handles these situations. But I wonder
>>>>>>>>>>> that this is required, and I am not sure which IPU polices can be disabled.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Oh, As I replied in another thread, I think IPU just affects filesystem
>>>>>>>>>> hot/cold separating, rather than this feature. So I think it will be okay
>>>>>>>>>> to not consider it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Before the second mapping is implemented, write hints are not passed down
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to devices. Because it is better that the data of a segment have the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> hint.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1]: c75b1d9421f80f4143e389d2d50ddfc8a28c8c35
>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2]: https://lwn.net/Articles/726477/
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you write a patch to support passing write hint to block layer for
>>>>>>>>>>>> buffered writes as below commit:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 0127251c45ae ("ext4: add support for passing in write hints for buffered writes")
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Sure I will. I wrote it already ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Cool, ;)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think that datas from the same segment should be passed down with the same
>>>>>>>>>>> hint, and the following mapping is reasonable. I wonder what is your opinion
>>>>>>>>>>> about it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> segment type hints
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------ -----
>>>>>>>>>>> CURSEG_COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
>>>>>>>>>>> CURSEG_HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT
>>>>>>>>>>> CURSEG_COLD_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NORMAL
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We have WRITE_LIFE_LONG defined rather than WRITE_LIFE_NORMAL in fs.h?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CURSEG_HOT_NODE WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> As I know, in scenario of cell phone, data of meta_inode is hottest, then hot
>>>>>>>>>> data, warm node, and cold node should be coldest. So I suggested we can define
>>>>>>>>>> as below:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> META_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT
>>>>>>>>>> HOT_DATA & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM
>>>>>>>>>> HOT_NODE & WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_LONG
>>>>>>>>>> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I agree, But I am not sure that assigning the same hint to a node and data
>>>>>>>>> segment is good. Because NVMe is likely to write them in the same erase
>>>>>>>>> block if they have the same hint.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If we do not give the hint, they can still be written to the same erase block,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I mean it's possible to write them to the same erase block. :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> right? it will not be worse?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If the hint is not given, I think that they could be written to
>>>>>>> the same erase block, or not. But if we give the same hint, they are written
>>>>>>> to the same block.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> IMO, Only if underlying device can support more hint type or opened channels,
>>>>>> and actual temperature of data segment and node segment is quite different, we
>>>>>> can separate them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Okay, If Jaegeuk Kim agrees with this, I will submit the patch that
>>>>> implements your proposed mapping.
>>>>
>>>> How about this? We'd better to split data and node blocks as much as possible.
>>>>
>>>> segment type hints
>>>> ------------ -----
>>>> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NONE
>>>
>>> WRITE_LIFE_NONE means there is no hints about write life time.
>>>
>>> Shouldn't we define COLD_NODE & COLD_DATA as WRITE_LIFE_EXTERME?
>>
>> The assumption would be to split different types of blocks by flash firmware,
>> so I think we can use WRITE_LIFE_NONE as a type as well.
>>
>
> WRITE_LIFE_NONE means that no stream id is specified. It equals WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET.
Rgith, I just saw nvme implementation:
nvme_assign_write_stream
enum rw_hint streamid = req->write_hint;
if (streamid == WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET || streamid == WRITE_LIFE_NONE)
streamid = 0;
else {
streamid--;
...
> So I think that we can define WARM_DATA as WRITE_LIFE_NONE, and
> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATA as WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME.
I think that would be better.
Thanks,
>
> Thanks.
>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>> WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTERME
>>>> HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG
>>>> HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM
>>>> META_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for comments ;)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am not sure ;)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> others WRITE_LIFE_NONE
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hyunchul Lee (2):
>>>>>>>>>>>>> f2fs: apply write hints to select the type of segments for buffered
>>>>>>>>>>>>> write
>>>>>>>>>>>>> f2fs: apply write hints to select the type of segment for direct write
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 14 +++++++-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 74 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists