| 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: <ZZSjXnK1v3fjtf65@google.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2024 15:59:26 -0800
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
To: Yonggil Song <yonggil.song@...sung.com>
Cc: "chao@...nel.org" <chao@...nel.org>,
"linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net" <linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Seokhwan Kim <sukka.kim@...sung.com>,
Daejun Park <daejun7.park@...sung.com>,
Siwoo Jung <siu.jung@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] f2fs: New victim selection for GC
On 12/28, Yonggil Song wrote:
> >From d08b97183bc830779c82b83d94f8b75ad11cb29a Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Yonggil Song <yonggil.song@...sung.com>
> Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2023 16:34:38 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH v4] f2fs: New victim selection for GC
>
> Overview
> ========
>
> This patch introduces a new way to preference data sections when selecting
> GC victims. Migration of data blocks causes invalidation of node blocks.
> Therefore, in situations where GC is frequent, selecting data blocks as
> victims can reduce unnecessary block migration by invalidating node blocks.
> For exceptional situations where free sections are insufficient, node blocks
> are selected as victims instead of data blocks to get extra free sections.
>
> Problem
> =======
>
> If the total amount of nodes is larger than the size of one section, nodes
> occupy multiple sections, and node victims are often selected because the
> gc cost is lowered by data block migration in GC. Since moving the data
> section causes frequent node victim selection, victim threshing occurs in
> the node section. This results in an increase in WAF.
>
> Experiment
> ==========
>
> Test environment is as follows.
>
> System info
> - 3.6GHz, 16 core CPU
> - 36GiB Memory
> Device info
> - a conventional null_blk with 228MiB
> - a sequential null_blk with 4068 zones of 8MiB
> Format
> - mkfs.f2fs <conv null_blk> -c <seq null_blk> -m -Z 8 -o 3.89
> Mount
> - mount <conv null_blk> <mount point>
> Fio script
> - fio --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --ba=4k --filesize=31187m --norandommap --overwrite=1 --name=job1 --filename=./mnt/sustain --io_size=128g
> WAF calculation
> - (IOs on conv. null_blk + IOs on seq. null_blk) / random write IOs
>
> Conclusion
> ==========
>
> This experiment showed that the WAF was reduced by 29% (18.75 -> 13.3) when
> the data section was selected first when selecting GC victims. This was
> achieved by reducing the migration of the node blocks by 69.4%
> (253,131,743 blks -> 77,463,278 blks). It is possible to achieve low WAF
> performance with the GC victim selection method in environments where the
> section size is relatively small.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yonggil Song <yonggil.song@...sung.com>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 99 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> fs/f2fs/gc.h | 6 +++
> 3 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index 9043cedfa12b..b2c0adfb2704 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@ -1649,6 +1649,7 @@ struct f2fs_sb_info {
> struct f2fs_mount_info mount_opt; /* mount options */
>
> /* for cleaning operations */
> + bool require_node_gc; /* flag for node GC */
> struct f2fs_rwsem gc_lock; /*
> * semaphore for GC, avoid
> * race between GC and GC or CP
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> index f550cdeaa663..d8a81a6ed325 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> @@ -341,6 +341,14 @@ static unsigned int get_cb_cost(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno)
> unsigned int i;
> unsigned int usable_segs_per_sec = f2fs_usable_segs_in_sec(sbi, segno);
>
> + /*
> + * When BG_GC selects victims based on age, it prevents node victims
> + * from being selected. This is because node blocks can be invalidated
> + * by moving data blocks.
> + */
> + if (__skip_node_gc(sbi, segno))
> + return UINT_MAX;
> +
> for (i = 0; i < usable_segs_per_sec; i++)
> mtime += get_seg_entry(sbi, start + i)->mtime;
> vblocks = get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, true);
> @@ -369,10 +377,24 @@ static inline unsigned int get_gc_cost(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> return get_seg_entry(sbi, segno)->ckpt_valid_blocks;
>
> /* alloc_mode == LFS */
> - if (p->gc_mode == GC_GREEDY)
> - return get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, true);
> - else if (p->gc_mode == GC_CB)
> + if (p->gc_mode == GC_GREEDY) {
> + /*
> + * If the data block that the node block pointed to is GCed,
> + * the node block is invalidated. For this reason, we add a
> + * weight to cost of node victims to give priority to data
> + * victims during the gc process. However, in a situation
> + * where we run out of free sections, we remove the weight
> + * because we need to clean up node blocks.
> + */
> + unsigned int cost = get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, true);
> +
> + if (__skip_node_gc(sbi, segno))
> + return cost +
> + (sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg);
> + return cost;
Given the comment, can we use a weight instead of cost?
- unsigned int cost = get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, true);
+ unsigned int weight = 0;
- if (__skip_node_gc(sbi, segno))
- return cost +
- (sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg);
- return cost;
+ if (__skip_node_gc(sbi, segno)) {
+ weight = sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg;
+
+ return get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, true) + weight;
> + } else if (p->gc_mode == GC_CB) {
> return get_cb_cost(sbi, segno);
> + }
>
> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1);
> return 0;
> @@ -557,6 +579,14 @@ static void atgc_lookup_victim(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> if (ve->mtime >= max_mtime || ve->mtime < min_mtime)
> goto skip;
>
> + /*
> + * When BG_GC selects victims based on age, it prevents node victims
> + * from being selected. This is because node blocks can be invalidated
> + * by moving data blocks.
> + */
> + if (__skip_node_gc(sbi, ve->segno))
> + goto skip;
> +
> /* age = 10000 * x% * 60 */
> age = div64_u64(accu * (max_mtime - ve->mtime), total_time) *
> age_weight;
> @@ -913,7 +943,22 @@ int f2fs_get_victim(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int *result,
> goto retry;
> }
>
> +
Unnecessary line.
> if (p.min_segno != NULL_SEGNO) {
I'm wondering whether we need to modify all the changes below. If we added
more cost to the node segments, how about just managing require_node_gc in
the specific cases?
> + if (sbi->require_node_gc &&
> + IS_DATASEG(get_seg_entry(sbi, p.min_segno)->type)) {
> + /*
> + * We need to clean node sections. but, data victim
> + * cost is the lowest. If free sections are enough,
> + * stop cleaning node victim. If not, it goes on
> + * by GCing data victims.
> + */
^-- Wrong indentation.
> + if (has_enough_free_secs(sbi, prefree_segments(sbi), 0)) {
> + sbi->require_node_gc = false;
> + p.min_segno = NULL_SEGNO;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> got_it:
> *result = (p.min_segno / p.ofs_unit) * p.ofs_unit;
> got_result:
> @@ -1830,8 +1875,27 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> goto stop;
> }
>
> + __get_secs_required(sbi, NULL, &upper_secs, NULL);
> +
> + /*
> + * Write checkpoint to reclaim prefree segments.
> + * We need more three extra sections for writer's data/node/dentry.
> + */
> + if (free_sections(sbi) <= upper_secs + NR_GC_CHECKPOINT_SECS) {
> + sbi->require_node_gc = true;
> +
> + if (prefree_segments(sbi)) {
> + stat_inc_cp_call_count(sbi, TOTAL_CALL);
> + ret = f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
> + if (ret)
> + goto stop;
> + /* Reset due to checkpoint */
> + sec_freed = 0;
> + }
> + }
> +
> /* Let's run FG_GC, if we don't have enough space. */
> - if (has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, 0, 0)) {
> + if (gc_type == BG_GC && has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, 0, 0)) {
> gc_type = FG_GC;
>
> /*
> @@ -1882,7 +1946,13 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> if (!gc_control->no_bg_gc &&
> total_sec_freed < gc_control->nr_free_secs)
> goto go_gc_more;
> - goto stop;
> + /*
> + * If require_node_gc flag is set even though there
> + * are enough free sections, node cleaning will
> + * continue.
> + */
> + if (!sbi->require_node_gc)
> + goto stop;
> }
> if (sbi->skipped_gc_rwsem)
> skipped_round++;
> @@ -1897,21 +1967,6 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> goto stop;
> }
>
> - __get_secs_required(sbi, NULL, &upper_secs, NULL);
> -
> - /*
> - * Write checkpoint to reclaim prefree segments.
> - * We need more three extra sections for writer's data/node/dentry.
> - */
> - if (free_sections(sbi) <= upper_secs + NR_GC_CHECKPOINT_SECS &&
> - prefree_segments(sbi)) {
> - stat_inc_cp_call_count(sbi, TOTAL_CALL);
> - ret = f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
> - if (ret)
> - goto stop;
> - /* Reset due to checkpoint */
> - sec_freed = 0;
> - }
> go_gc_more:
> segno = NULL_SEGNO;
> goto gc_more;
> @@ -1920,8 +1975,10 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> SIT_I(sbi)->last_victim[ALLOC_NEXT] = 0;
> SIT_I(sbi)->last_victim[FLUSH_DEVICE] = gc_control->victim_segno;
>
> - if (gc_type == FG_GC)
> + if (gc_type == FG_GC) {
> f2fs_unpin_all_sections(sbi, true);
> + sbi->require_node_gc = false;
> + }
>
> trace_f2fs_gc_end(sbi->sb, ret, total_freed, total_sec_freed,
> get_pages(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES),
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.h b/fs/f2fs/gc.h
> index 28a00942802c..cd07bf125177 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.h
> @@ -166,3 +166,9 @@ static inline bool has_enough_invalid_blocks(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> free_user_blocks(sbi) <
> limit_free_user_blocks(invalid_user_blocks));
> }
> +
> +static inline bool __skip_node_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno)
> +{
> + return (IS_NODESEG(get_seg_entry(sbi, segno)->type) &&
> + !sbi->require_node_gc);
> +}
> --
> 2.34.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists