* [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock
@ 2015-09-15 16:55 Jaegeuk Kim
2015-09-15 16:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time Jaegeuk Kim
2015-09-17 11:43 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock Chao Yu
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2015-09-15 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-f2fs-devel; +Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
This number is referenced by checkpoint under node_write lock.
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
---
fs/f2fs/node.c | 15 ++++++++-------
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
index 27d1a74..4d9bedf 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
@@ -1323,23 +1323,24 @@ static int f2fs_write_node_page(struct page *page,
nid = nid_of_node(page);
f2fs_bug_on(sbi, page->index != nid);
+ if (wbc->for_reclaim) {
+ if (!down_read_trylock(&sbi->node_write))
+ goto redirty_out;
+ } else {
+ down_read(&sbi->node_write);
+ }
+
get_node_info(sbi, nid, &ni);
/* This page is already truncated */
if (unlikely(ni.blk_addr == NULL_ADDR)) {
ClearPageUptodate(page);
dec_page_count(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES);
+ up_read(&sbi->node_write);
unlock_page(page);
return 0;
}
- if (wbc->for_reclaim) {
- if (!down_read_trylock(&sbi->node_write))
- goto redirty_out;
- } else {
- down_read(&sbi->node_write);
- }
-
set_page_writeback(page);
fio.blk_addr = ni.blk_addr;
write_node_page(nid, &fio);
--
2.1.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time
2015-09-15 16:55 [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2015-09-15 16:55 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2015-09-17 12:19 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2015-09-17 11:43 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock Chao Yu
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2015-09-15 16:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-f2fs-devel; +Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
As comment says, we don't need to call f2fs_lock_op in write_inode to prevent
from producing dirty node pages all the time.
That happens only when there is not enough free sections and we can avoid that
by calling balance_fs in prior to that.
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
---
fs/f2fs/inode.c | 10 +++-------
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
index 35aae65..0fc4d02 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
@@ -296,16 +296,12 @@ int f2fs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
return 0;
/*
- * We need to lock here to prevent from producing dirty node pages
+ * We need to balance fs here to prevent from producing dirty node pages
* during the urgent cleaning time when runing out of free sections.
*/
- f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
- update_inode_page(inode);
- f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
-
- if (wbc)
- f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
+ f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
+ update_inode_page(inode);
return 0;
}
--
2.1.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock
2015-09-15 16:55 [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock Jaegeuk Kim
2015-09-15 16:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2015-09-17 11:43 ` Chao Yu
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2015-09-17 11:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Jaegeuk Kim'; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-fsdevel, linux-kernel
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:56 AM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
> Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock
>
> This number is referenced by checkpoint under node_write lock.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@samsung.com>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time
2015-09-15 16:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2015-09-17 12:19 ` Chao Yu
2015-09-17 18:00 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2015-09-17 12:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 'Jaegeuk Kim'; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-f2fs-devel
Hi Jaegeuk,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:56 AM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
> Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time
>
> As comment says, we don't need to call f2fs_lock_op in write_inode to prevent
> from producing dirty node pages all the time.
> That happens only when there is not enough free sections and we can avoid that
> by calling balance_fs in prior to that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/inode.c | 10 +++-------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> index 35aae65..0fc4d02 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> @@ -296,16 +296,12 @@ int f2fs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> return 0;
>
> /*
> - * We need to lock here to prevent from producing dirty node pages
> + * We need to balance fs here to prevent from producing dirty node pages
> * during the urgent cleaning time when runing out of free sections.
> */
> - f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
> - update_inode_page(inode);
> - f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
> -
> - if (wbc)
> - f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
f2fs_balance_fs was moved here intentionally by Jin Xu in commit 92c4342fb72a
("f2fs: avoid writing inode redundantly when creating a file") to avoid
redundantly inode page submitting, I was confused since I didn't know all
history here. So, should we change the position of f2fs_balance_fs?
Thanks,
> + f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
>
> + update_inode_page(inode);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.1.1
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time
2015-09-17 12:19 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
@ 2015-09-17 18:00 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2015-09-17 18:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-fsdevel, linux-f2fs-devel
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 08:19:06PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:56 AM
> > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org;
> > linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
> > Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time
> >
> > As comment says, we don't need to call f2fs_lock_op in write_inode to prevent
> > from producing dirty node pages all the time.
> > That happens only when there is not enough free sections and we can avoid that
> > by calling balance_fs in prior to that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/inode.c | 10 +++-------
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > index 35aae65..0fc4d02 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> > @@ -296,16 +296,12 @@ int f2fs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> > return 0;
> >
> > /*
> > - * We need to lock here to prevent from producing dirty node pages
> > + * We need to balance fs here to prevent from producing dirty node pages
> > * during the urgent cleaning time when runing out of free sections.
> > */
> > - f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
> > - update_inode_page(inode);
> > - f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
> > -
> > - if (wbc)
> > - f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
>
> f2fs_balance_fs was moved here intentionally by Jin Xu in commit 92c4342fb72a
> ("f2fs: avoid writing inode redundantly when creating a file") to avoid
> redundantly inode page submitting, I was confused since I didn't know all
> history here. So, should we change the position of f2fs_balance_fs?
Oh, I remained that order. Fixed and merged.
Thanks,
>
> Thanks,
>
> > + f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
> >
> > + update_inode_page(inode);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > --
> > 2.1.1
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-09-17 18:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-09-15 16:55 [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock Jaegeuk Kim
2015-09-15 16:55 ` [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time Jaegeuk Kim
2015-09-17 12:19 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2015-09-17 18:00 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2015-09-17 11:43 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: cover number of dirty node pages under node_write lock Chao Yu
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).