From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> Cc: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>, <linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] f2fs: schedule in between two continous batch discards Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:50:50 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <fa750082-926f-d9e0-d3f5-af8613a173ff@huawei.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160825165716.GA84318@jaegeuk> Hi Jaegeuk, On 2016/8/26 0:57, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:22:29PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Jaegeuk, >> >> On 2016/8/24 0:53, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> Hi Chao, >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:21:30PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>> >>>> In batch discard approach of fstrim will grab/release gc_mutex lock >>>> repeatly, it makes contention of the lock becoming more intensive. >>>> >>>> So after one batch discards were issued in checkpoint and the lock >>>> was released, it's better to do schedule() to increase opportunity >>>> of grabbing gc_mutex lock for other competitors. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> index 020767c..d0f74eb 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> @@ -1305,6 +1305,8 @@ int f2fs_trim_fs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct fstrim_range *range) >>>> mutex_unlock(&sbi->gc_mutex); >>>> if (err) >>>> break; >>>> + >>>> + schedule(); >>> >>> Hmm, if other thread is already waiting for gc_mutex, we don't need this here. >>> In order to avoid long latency, wouldn't it be enough to reduce the batch size? >> >> Hmm, when fstrim call mutex_unlock we will pop one blocked locker from FIFO list >> of mutex lock, and wake it up, then fstrimer will try to lock gc_mutex for next >> batch trim, so the popped locker and fstrimer will make a new competition in >> gc_mutex. > > Before trying to grab gc_mutex by fstrim again, there are already blocked tasks > waiting for gc_mutex. Hence the next one should be selectec by FIFO, no? The next one which is going to be waked up is selected by FIFO, but the waked one is still needs to be race with other mutex lock grabber. So there is no such guarantee that the waked one must get the lock. Thanks, > > Thanks, > >> If fstrimer is running in a big core, and popped locker is running in >> a small core, we can't guarantee popped locker can win the race, and for the >> most of time, fstrimer will win. So in order to reduce starvation of other >> gc_mutext locker, it's better to do schedule() here. >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> } >>>> out: >>>> range->len = F2FS_BLK_TO_BYTES(cpc.trimmed); >>>> -- >>>> 2.7.2 >>> >>> . >>> > > . >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> Cc: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] f2fs: schedule in between two continous batch discards Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 08:50:50 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <fa750082-926f-d9e0-d3f5-af8613a173ff@huawei.com> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20160825165716.GA84318@jaegeuk> Hi Jaegeuk, On 2016/8/26 0:57, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On Thu, Aug 25, 2016 at 05:22:29PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Jaegeuk, >> >> On 2016/8/24 0:53, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> Hi Chao, >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:21:30PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>> >>>> In batch discard approach of fstrim will grab/release gc_mutex lock >>>> repeatly, it makes contention of the lock becoming more intensive. >>>> >>>> So after one batch discards were issued in checkpoint and the lock >>>> was released, it's better to do schedule() to increase opportunity >>>> of grabbing gc_mutex lock for other competitors. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 2 ++ >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> index 020767c..d0f74eb 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> @@ -1305,6 +1305,8 @@ int f2fs_trim_fs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct fstrim_range *range) >>>> mutex_unlock(&sbi->gc_mutex); >>>> if (err) >>>> break; >>>> + >>>> + schedule(); >>> >>> Hmm, if other thread is already waiting for gc_mutex, we don't need this here. >>> In order to avoid long latency, wouldn't it be enough to reduce the batch size? >> >> Hmm, when fstrim call mutex_unlock we will pop one blocked locker from FIFO list >> of mutex lock, and wake it up, then fstrimer will try to lock gc_mutex for next >> batch trim, so the popped locker and fstrimer will make a new competition in >> gc_mutex. > > Before trying to grab gc_mutex by fstrim again, there are already blocked tasks > waiting for gc_mutex. Hence the next one should be selectec by FIFO, no? The next one which is going to be waked up is selected by FIFO, but the waked one is still needs to be race with other mutex lock grabber. So there is no such guarantee that the waked one must get the lock. Thanks, > > Thanks, > >> If fstrimer is running in a big core, and popped locker is running in >> a small core, we can't guarantee popped locker can win the race, and for the >> most of time, fstrimer will win. So in order to reduce starvation of other >> gc_mutext locker, it's better to do schedule() here. >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> } >>>> out: >>>> range->len = F2FS_BLK_TO_BYTES(cpc.trimmed); >>>> -- >>>> 2.7.2 >>> >>> . >>> > > . >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-08-26 0:52 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2016-08-21 15:21 [PATCH 1/3] f2fs: check return value of write_checkpoint during fstrim Chao Yu 2016-08-21 15:21 ` [PATCH 2/3] f2fs: schedule in between two continous batch discards Chao Yu 2016-08-21 15:21 ` Chao Yu 2016-08-23 16:53 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-08-23 16:53 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-08-25 9:22 ` Chao Yu 2016-08-25 9:22 ` Chao Yu 2016-08-25 16:57 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-08-25 16:57 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-08-26 0:50 ` Chao Yu [this message] 2016-08-26 0:50 ` Chao Yu 2016-08-26 2:50 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-08-26 2:50 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-08-21 15:21 ` [PATCH 3/3] f2fs: remove redundant judgement condition in available_free_memory Chao Yu 2016-08-21 15:21 ` Chao Yu
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=fa750082-926f-d9e0-d3f5-af8613a173ff@huawei.com \ --to=yuchao0@huawei.com \ --cc=chao@kernel.org \ --cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.