[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a8f01157-0b1b-d83a-488d-bb48cf8954ab@huawei.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 14:30:55 +0800
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@...wei.com>
To: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>
CC: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix long latency due to discard during umount
On 2020/3/13 11:39, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 10:20:04AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/3/12 19:14, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>> F2FS already has a default timeout of 5 secs for discards that
>>> can be issued during umount, but it can take more than the 5 sec
>>> timeout if the underlying UFS device queue is already full and there
>>> are no more available free tags to be used. In that case, submit_bio()
>>> will wait for the already queued discard requests to complete to get
>>> a free tag, which can potentially take way more than 5 sec.
>>>
>>> Fix this by submitting the discard requests with REQ_NOWAIT
>>> flags during umount. This will return -EAGAIN for UFS queue/tag full
>>> scenario without waiting in the context of submit_bio(). The FS can
>>> then handle these requests by retrying again within the stipulated
>>> discard timeout period to avoid long latencies.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@...eaurora.org>
>>> ---
>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> index fb3e531..a06bbac 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> @@ -1124,10 +1124,13 @@ static int __submit_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>> struct discard_cmd_control *dcc = SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info;
>>> struct list_head *wait_list = (dpolicy->type == DPOLICY_FSTRIM) ?
>>> &(dcc->fstrim_list) : &(dcc->wait_list);
>>> - int flag = dpolicy->sync ? REQ_SYNC : 0;
>>> + int flag;
>>> block_t lstart, start, len, total_len;
>>> int err = 0;
>>>
>>> + flag = dpolicy->sync ? REQ_SYNC : 0;
>>> + flag |= dpolicy->type == DPOLICY_UMOUNT ? REQ_NOWAIT : 0;
>>> +
>>> if (dc->state != D_PREP)
>>> return 0;
>>>
>>> @@ -1203,6 +1206,11 @@ static int __submit_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>> bio->bi_end_io = f2fs_submit_discard_endio;
>>> bio->bi_opf |= flag;
>>> submit_bio(bio);
>>> + if ((flag & REQ_NOWAIT) && (dc->error == -EAGAIN)) {
>>
>> If we want to update dc->state, we need to cover it with dc->lock.
>
> Sure, will update it.
>
>>
>>> + dc->state = D_PREP;
>>
>> BTW, one dc can be referenced by multiple bios, so dc->state could be updated to
>> D_DONE later by f2fs_submit_discard_endio(), however we just relocate it to
>> pending list... which is inconsistent status.
>
> In that case dc->bio_ref will reflect it and until it becomes 0, the dc->state
> will not be updated to D_DONE in f2fs_submit_discard_endio()?
__submit_discard_cmd()
lock()
dc->state = D_SUBMIT;
dc->bio_ref++;
unlock()
...
submit_bio()
f2fs_submit_discard_endio()
dc->error = -EAGAIN;
lock()
dc->bio_ref--;
dc->state = D_PREP;
dc->state = D_DONE;
unlock()
So finally, dc's state is D_DONE, and it's in wait list, then will be relocated
to pending list.
>
> Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> + err = dc->error;
>>> + break;
>>> + }
>>>
>>> atomic_inc(&dcc->issued_discard);
>>>
>>> @@ -1510,6 +1518,10 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>> }
>>>
>>> __submit_discard_cmd(sbi, dpolicy, dc, &issued);
>>> + if (dc->error == -EAGAIN) {
>>> + congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
>>> + __relocate_discard_cmd(dcc, dc);
>>> + }
>>>
>>> if (issued >= dpolicy->max_requests)
>>> break;
>>>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists