[PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to return correct trimmed block number in FITRIM interface

[PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to return correct trimmed block number in FITRIM interface

[Chao Yu]

During tiggering fstrim, in case of issuing discard for prefree segments,
we miss acclumulating trimmed block number which will be return to user.
Fix it.

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/segment.c | 7 ++++++-
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 6d16ecf..5dc14d6 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -732,15 +732,20 @@ void clear_prefree_segments(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc)
 		if (!test_opt(sbi, LFS) || sbi->segs_per_sec == 1) {
 			f2fs_issue_discard(sbi, START_BLOCK(sbi, start),
 				(end - start) << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg);
+			cpc->trimmed +=
+				(end - start) << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg;
 			continue;
 		}
 next:
 		secno = GET_SECNO(sbi, start);
 		start_segno = secno * sbi->segs_per_sec;
 		if (!IS_CURSEC(sbi, secno) &&
-			!get_valid_blocks(sbi, start, sbi->segs_per_sec))
+			!get_valid_blocks(sbi, start, sbi->segs_per_sec)) {
 			f2fs_issue_discard(sbi, START_BLOCK(sbi, start_segno),
 				sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg);
+			cpc->trimmed +=
+				sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg;
+		}
 
 		start = start_segno + sbi->segs_per_sec;
 		if (start < end)
-- 
2.8.2.311.gee88674

[PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO

[Chao Yu]

Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
face race case as below:

For write case:
Thread A				Thread B
- generic_file_direct_write
 - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
 - f2fs_direct_IO
  - do_blockdev_direct_IO
   - do_direct_IO
    - get_more_blocks
					- f2fs_gc
					 - do_garbage_collect
					  - gc_data_segment
					   - move_data_page
					    - do_write_data_page
					    migrate data block to new block address
   - dio_bio_submit
   update user data to old block address

For read case:
Thread A                                Thread B
- generic_file_direct_write
 - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
 - f2fs_direct_IO
  - do_blockdev_direct_IO
   - do_direct_IO
    - get_more_blocks
					- f2fs_balance_fs
					 - f2fs_gc
					  - do_garbage_collect
					   - gc_data_segment
					    - move_data_page
					     - do_write_data_page
					     migrate data block to new block address
					  - write_checkpoint
					   - do_checkpoint
					    - clear_prefree_segments
					     - f2fs_issue_discard
                                             discard old block adress
   - dio_bio_submit
   update user buffer from obsolete block address

In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
against with each other.

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
 fs/f2fs/data.c  |  2 ++
 fs/f2fs/f2fs.h  |  1 +
 fs/f2fs/gc.c    | 14 +++++++++++++-
 fs/f2fs/super.c |  1 +
 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
index ba4963f..08dc060 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
@@ -1716,7 +1716,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
 
 	trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
 
+	mutex_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
 	err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
+	mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
 	if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
 		if (err > 0)
 			set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
index bd82b6d..a241576 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
@@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
 	struct list_head inmem_pages;	/* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
 	struct mutex inmem_lock;	/* lock for inmemory pages */
 	struct extent_tree *extent_tree;	/* cached extent_tree entry */
+	struct mutex dio_mutex;		/* avoid racing between dio and gc */
 };
 
 static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
index c2c4ac3..98e3763 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
@@ -744,12 +744,24 @@ next_step:
 		/* phase 3 */
 		inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
 		if (inode) {
+			bool locked = false;
+
+			if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
+				if (!mutex_trylock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex))
+					continue;
+				locked = true;
+			}
+
 			start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
 								+ ofs_in_node;
-			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
+			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) &&
+							S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
 				move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
 			else
 				move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
+			if (locked)
+				mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
+
 			stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
 		}
 	}
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index 8c698e1..24aab3f 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -575,6 +575,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
 	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
 	mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
+	mutex_init(&fi->dio_mutex);
 
 	/* Will be used by directory only */
 	fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
-- 
2.8.2.311.gee88674

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO

[Jaegeuk Kim]

Hi Chao,

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:42:48PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
> face race case as below:
> 
> For write case:
> Thread A				Thread B
> - generic_file_direct_write
>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>  - f2fs_direct_IO
>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>    - do_direct_IO
>     - get_more_blocks
> 					- f2fs_gc
> 					 - do_garbage_collect
> 					  - gc_data_segment
> 					   - move_data_page
> 					    - do_write_data_page
> 					    migrate data block to new block address
>    - dio_bio_submit
>    update user data to old block address
> 
> For read case:
> Thread A                                Thread B
> - generic_file_direct_write
>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>  - f2fs_direct_IO
>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>    - do_direct_IO
>     - get_more_blocks
> 					- f2fs_balance_fs
> 					 - f2fs_gc
> 					  - do_garbage_collect
> 					   - gc_data_segment
> 					    - move_data_page
> 					     - do_write_data_page
> 					     migrate data block to new block address
> 					  - write_checkpoint
> 					   - do_checkpoint
> 					    - clear_prefree_segments
> 					     - f2fs_issue_discard
>                                              discard old block adress
>    - dio_bio_submit
>    update user buffer from obsolete block address
> 
> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
> against with each other.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/data.c  |  2 ++
>  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h  |  1 +
>  fs/f2fs/gc.c    | 14 +++++++++++++-
>  fs/f2fs/super.c |  1 +
>  4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> index ba4963f..08dc060 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> @@ -1716,7 +1716,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>  
>  	trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>  	err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
> +	mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);

This means we need to sacrifice entire parallism even in the normal cases?
Can we find another way?

Thanks,

>  	if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
>  		if (err > 0)
>  			set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index bd82b6d..a241576 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
>  	struct list_head inmem_pages;	/* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
>  	struct mutex inmem_lock;	/* lock for inmemory pages */
>  	struct extent_tree *extent_tree;	/* cached extent_tree entry */
> +	struct mutex dio_mutex;		/* avoid racing between dio and gc */
>  };
>  
>  static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> index c2c4ac3..98e3763 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> @@ -744,12 +744,24 @@ next_step:
>  		/* phase 3 */
>  		inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
>  		if (inode) {
> +			bool locked = false;
> +
> +			if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
> +				if (!mutex_trylock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex))
> +					continue;
> +				locked = true;
> +			}
> +
>  			start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
>  								+ ofs_in_node;
> -			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> +			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) &&
> +							S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>  				move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
>  			else
>  				move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
> +			if (locked)
> +				mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
> +
>  			stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
>  		}
>  	}
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> index 8c698e1..24aab3f 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> @@ -575,6 +575,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
>  	mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
> +	mutex_init(&fi->dio_mutex);
>  
>  	/* Will be used by directory only */
>  	fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
> -- 
> 2.8.2.311.gee88674

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO

[Chao Yu]

Hi Jaegeuk,

On 2016/7/1 8:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
> 
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:42:48PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
>> face race case as below:
>>
>> For write case:
>> Thread A				Thread B
>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>  - f2fs_direct_IO
>>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>    - do_direct_IO
>>     - get_more_blocks
>> 					- f2fs_gc
>> 					 - do_garbage_collect
>> 					  - gc_data_segment
>> 					   - move_data_page
>> 					    - do_write_data_page
>> 					    migrate data block to new block address
>>    - dio_bio_submit
>>    update user data to old block address
>>
>> For read case:
>> Thread A                                Thread B
>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>  - f2fs_direct_IO
>>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>    - do_direct_IO
>>     - get_more_blocks
>> 					- f2fs_balance_fs
>> 					 - f2fs_gc
>> 					  - do_garbage_collect
>> 					   - gc_data_segment
>> 					    - move_data_page
>> 					     - do_write_data_page
>> 					     migrate data block to new block address
>> 					  - write_checkpoint
>> 					   - do_checkpoint
>> 					    - clear_prefree_segments
>> 					     - f2fs_issue_discard
>>                                              discard old block adress
>>    - dio_bio_submit
>>    update user buffer from obsolete block address
>>
>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
>> against with each other.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/f2fs/data.c  |  2 ++
>>  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h  |  1 +
>>  fs/f2fs/gc.c    | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>  fs/f2fs/super.c |  1 +
>>  4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> index ba4963f..08dc060 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> @@ -1716,7 +1716,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>  
>>  	trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
>>  
>> +	mutex_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>  	err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
> 
> This means we need to sacrifice entire parallism even in the normal cases?
> Can we find another way?

1. For dio write vs dio write, writer will grab i_mutex before dio_mutex, so
anyway, concurrent dio writes will be exclusive.

2. For dio write vs gc, keep using dio_mutex for making them exclusive.

3. For dio read vs dio read, and dio read vs gc, what about adding dio_rwsem to
control the parallelism?

4. For dio write vs dio read, we grab different lock (write grabs dio_mutex,
read grabs dio_rwsem), so there is no race condition.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>  	if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
>>  		if (err > 0)
>>  			set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> index bd82b6d..a241576 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
>>  	struct list_head inmem_pages;	/* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
>>  	struct mutex inmem_lock;	/* lock for inmemory pages */
>>  	struct extent_tree *extent_tree;	/* cached extent_tree entry */
>> +	struct mutex dio_mutex;		/* avoid racing between dio and gc */
>>  };
>>  
>>  static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>> index c2c4ac3..98e3763 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>> @@ -744,12 +744,24 @@ next_step:
>>  		/* phase 3 */
>>  		inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
>>  		if (inode) {
>> +			bool locked = false;
>> +
>> +			if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
>> +				if (!mutex_trylock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex))
>> +					continue;
>> +				locked = true;
>> +			}
>> +
>>  			start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
>>  								+ ofs_in_node;
>> -			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>> +			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) &&
>> +							S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>  				move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
>>  			else
>>  				move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
>> +			if (locked)
>> +				mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>> +
>>  			stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
>>  		}
>>  	}
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> index 8c698e1..24aab3f 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> @@ -575,6 +575,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
>>  	mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
>> +	mutex_init(&fi->dio_mutex);
>>  
>>  	/* Will be used by directory only */
>>  	fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
>> -- 
>> 2.8.2.311.gee88674
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
> 
> On 2016/7/1 8:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Chao,
> > 
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:42:48PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
> >> face race case as below:
> >>
> >> For write case:
> >> Thread A				Thread B
> >> - generic_file_direct_write
> >>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> >>  - f2fs_direct_IO
> >>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >>    - do_direct_IO
> >>     - get_more_blocks
> >> 					- f2fs_gc
> >> 					 - do_garbage_collect
> >> 					  - gc_data_segment
> >> 					   - move_data_page
> >> 					    - do_write_data_page
> >> 					    migrate data block to new block address
> >>    - dio_bio_submit
> >>    update user data to old block address
> >>
> >> For read case:
> >> Thread A                                Thread B
> >> - generic_file_direct_write
> >>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> >>  - f2fs_direct_IO
> >>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >>    - do_direct_IO
> >>     - get_more_blocks
> >> 					- f2fs_balance_fs
> >> 					 - f2fs_gc
> >> 					  - do_garbage_collect
> >> 					   - gc_data_segment
> >> 					    - move_data_page
> >> 					     - do_write_data_page
> >> 					     migrate data block to new block address
> >> 					  - write_checkpoint
> >> 					   - do_checkpoint
> >> 					    - clear_prefree_segments
> >> 					     - f2fs_issue_discard
> >>                                              discard old block adress
> >>    - dio_bio_submit
> >>    update user buffer from obsolete block address
> >>
> >> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
> >> against with each other.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >>  fs/f2fs/data.c  |  2 ++
> >>  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h  |  1 +
> >>  fs/f2fs/gc.c    | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >>  fs/f2fs/super.c |  1 +
> >>  4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >> index ba4963f..08dc060 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >> @@ -1716,7 +1716,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
> >>  
> >>  	trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
> >>  
> >> +	mutex_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
> >>  	err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
> >> +	mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
> > 
> > This means we need to sacrifice entire parallism even in the normal cases?
> > Can we find another way?
> 
> 1. For dio write vs dio write, writer will grab i_mutex before dio_mutex, so
> anyway, concurrent dio writes will be exclusive.
> 
> 2. For dio write vs gc, keep using dio_mutex for making them exclusive.
> 
> 3. For dio read vs dio read, and dio read vs gc, what about adding dio_rwsem to
> control the parallelism?
> 
> 4. For dio write vs dio read, we grab different lock (write grabs dio_mutex,
> read grabs dio_rwsem), so there is no race condition.

How about adding a flag in a dio inode and avoiding GCs for there-in blocks?

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> >>  	if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
> >>  		if (err > 0)
> >>  			set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> index bd82b6d..a241576 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
> >>  	struct list_head inmem_pages;	/* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
> >>  	struct mutex inmem_lock;	/* lock for inmemory pages */
> >>  	struct extent_tree *extent_tree;	/* cached extent_tree entry */
> >> +	struct mutex dio_mutex;		/* avoid racing between dio and gc */
> >>  };
> >>  
> >>  static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> index c2c4ac3..98e3763 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> @@ -744,12 +744,24 @@ next_step:
> >>  		/* phase 3 */
> >>  		inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
> >>  		if (inode) {
> >> +			bool locked = false;
> >> +
> >> +			if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
> >> +				if (!mutex_trylock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex))
> >> +					continue;
> >> +				locked = true;
> >> +			}
> >> +
> >>  			start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
> >>  								+ ofs_in_node;
> >> -			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> >> +			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) &&
> >> +							S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> >>  				move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
> >>  			else
> >>  				move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
> >> +			if (locked)
> >> +				mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
> >> +
> >>  			stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
> >>  		}
> >>  	}
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> index 8c698e1..24aab3f 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> @@ -575,6 +575,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> >>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
> >>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
> >>  	mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
> >> +	mutex_init(&fi->dio_mutex);
> >>  
> >>  	/* Will be used by directory only */
> >>  	fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
> >> -- 
> >> 2.8.2.311.gee88674
> > 
> > .
> > 

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO

[Chao Yu]

On 2016/7/6 8:24, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> On 2016/7/1 8:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:42:48PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
>>>> face race case as below:
>>>>
>>>> For write case:
>>>> Thread A				Thread B
>>>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>>>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>>>  - f2fs_direct_IO
>>>>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>>>    - do_direct_IO
>>>>     - get_more_blocks
>>>> 					- f2fs_gc
>>>> 					 - do_garbage_collect
>>>> 					  - gc_data_segment
>>>> 					   - move_data_page
>>>> 					    - do_write_data_page
>>>> 					    migrate data block to new block address
>>>>    - dio_bio_submit
>>>>    update user data to old block address
>>>>
>>>> For read case:
>>>> Thread A                                Thread B
>>>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>>>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>>>  - f2fs_direct_IO
>>>>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>>>    - do_direct_IO
>>>>     - get_more_blocks
>>>> 					- f2fs_balance_fs
>>>> 					 - f2fs_gc
>>>> 					  - do_garbage_collect
>>>> 					   - gc_data_segment
>>>> 					    - move_data_page
>>>> 					     - do_write_data_page
>>>> 					     migrate data block to new block address
>>>> 					  - write_checkpoint
>>>> 					   - do_checkpoint
>>>> 					    - clear_prefree_segments
>>>> 					     - f2fs_issue_discard
>>>>                                              discard old block adress
>>>>    - dio_bio_submit
>>>>    update user buffer from obsolete block address
>>>>
>>>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
>>>> against with each other.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/f2fs/data.c  |  2 ++
>>>>  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h  |  1 +
>>>>  fs/f2fs/gc.c    | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>>>  fs/f2fs/super.c |  1 +
>>>>  4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> index ba4963f..08dc060 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> @@ -1716,7 +1716,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>>>  
>>>>  	trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
>>>>  
>>>> +	mutex_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>>  	err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
>>>> +	mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>
>>> This means we need to sacrifice entire parallism even in the normal cases?
>>> Can we find another way?
>>
>> 1. For dio write vs dio write, writer will grab i_mutex before dio_mutex, so
>> anyway, concurrent dio writes will be exclusive.
>>
>> 2. For dio write vs gc, keep using dio_mutex for making them exclusive.
>>
>> 3. For dio read vs dio read, and dio read vs gc, what about adding dio_rwsem to
>> control the parallelism?
>>
>> 4. For dio write vs dio read, we grab different lock (write grabs dio_mutex,
>> read grabs dio_rwsem), so there is no race condition.
> 
> How about adding a flag in a dio inode and avoiding GCs for there-in blocks?

Hmm.. IMO, without lock, it's hard to keep the sequence that let GC checking the
flag after setting it, right?

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>>  	if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
>>>>  		if (err > 0)
>>>>  			set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>> index bd82b6d..a241576 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
>>>>  	struct list_head inmem_pages;	/* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
>>>>  	struct mutex inmem_lock;	/* lock for inmemory pages */
>>>>  	struct extent_tree *extent_tree;	/* cached extent_tree entry */
>>>> +	struct mutex dio_mutex;		/* avoid racing between dio and gc */
>>>>  };
>>>>  
>>>>  static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> index c2c4ac3..98e3763 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> @@ -744,12 +744,24 @@ next_step:
>>>>  		/* phase 3 */
>>>>  		inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
>>>>  		if (inode) {
>>>> +			bool locked = false;
>>>> +
>>>> +			if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
>>>> +				if (!mutex_trylock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex))
>>>> +					continue;
>>>> +				locked = true;
>>>> +			}
>>>> +
>>>>  			start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
>>>>  								+ ofs_in_node;
>>>> -			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>>> +			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) &&
>>>> +							S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>>>  				move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
>>>>  			else
>>>>  				move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
>>>> +			if (locked)
>>>> +				mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>> +
>>>>  			stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
>>>>  		}
>>>>  	}
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> index 8c698e1..24aab3f 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> @@ -575,6 +575,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
>>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
>>>>  	mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
>>>> +	mutex_init(&fi->dio_mutex);
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* Will be used by directory only */
>>>>  	fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.8.2.311.gee88674
>>>
>>> .
>>>
> 
> .
> 

Re: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO

[Jaegeuk Kim]

On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 10:10:57AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2016/7/6 8:24, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>
> >> On 2016/7/1 8:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> Hi Chao,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:42:48PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
> >>>> face race case as below:
> >>>>
> >>>> For write case:
> >>>> Thread A				Thread B
> >>>> - generic_file_direct_write
> >>>>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> >>>>  - f2fs_direct_IO
> >>>>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >>>>    - do_direct_IO
> >>>>     - get_more_blocks
> >>>> 					- f2fs_gc
> >>>> 					 - do_garbage_collect
> >>>> 					  - gc_data_segment
> >>>> 					   - move_data_page
> >>>> 					    - do_write_data_page
> >>>> 					    migrate data block to new block address
> >>>>    - dio_bio_submit
> >>>>    update user data to old block address
> >>>>
> >>>> For read case:
> >>>> Thread A                                Thread B
> >>>> - generic_file_direct_write
> >>>>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> >>>>  - f2fs_direct_IO
> >>>>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >>>>    - do_direct_IO
> >>>>     - get_more_blocks
> >>>> 					- f2fs_balance_fs
> >>>> 					 - f2fs_gc
> >>>> 					  - do_garbage_collect
> >>>> 					   - gc_data_segment
> >>>> 					    - move_data_page
> >>>> 					     - do_write_data_page
> >>>> 					     migrate data block to new block address
> >>>> 					  - write_checkpoint
> >>>> 					   - do_checkpoint
> >>>> 					    - clear_prefree_segments
> >>>> 					     - f2fs_issue_discard
> >>>>                                              discard old block adress
> >>>>    - dio_bio_submit
> >>>>    update user buffer from obsolete block address
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
> >>>> against with each other.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>  fs/f2fs/data.c  |  2 ++
> >>>>  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h  |  1 +
> >>>>  fs/f2fs/gc.c    | 14 +++++++++++++-
> >>>>  fs/f2fs/super.c |  1 +
> >>>>  4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>> index ba4963f..08dc060 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>> @@ -1716,7 +1716,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
> >>>>  
> >>>>  	trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
> >>>>  
> >>>> +	mutex_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
> >>>>  	err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
> >>>> +	mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
> >>>
> >>> This means we need to sacrifice entire parallism even in the normal cases?
> >>> Can we find another way?
> >>
> >> 1. For dio write vs dio write, writer will grab i_mutex before dio_mutex, so
> >> anyway, concurrent dio writes will be exclusive.
> >>
> >> 2. For dio write vs gc, keep using dio_mutex for making them exclusive.
> >>
> >> 3. For dio read vs dio read, and dio read vs gc, what about adding dio_rwsem to
> >> control the parallelism?
> >>
> >> 4. For dio write vs dio read, we grab different lock (write grabs dio_mutex,
> >> read grabs dio_rwsem), so there is no race condition.
> > 
> > How about adding a flag in a dio inode and avoiding GCs for there-in blocks?
> 
> Hmm.. IMO, without lock, it's hard to keep the sequence that let GC checking the
> flag after setting it, right?

Okay, could you add dio_rwsem for now?
Later, we may need to take a look at dio_overwrite case to mitigate inode_lock
contention likewise xfs. :)

Thanks,

> >>>
> >>>>  	if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
> >>>>  		if (err > 0)
> >>>>  			set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>>> index bd82b6d..a241576 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
> >>>>  	struct list_head inmem_pages;	/* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
> >>>>  	struct mutex inmem_lock;	/* lock for inmemory pages */
> >>>>  	struct extent_tree *extent_tree;	/* cached extent_tree entry */
> >>>> +	struct mutex dio_mutex;		/* avoid racing between dio and gc */
> >>>>  };
> >>>>  
> >>>>  static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>>> index c2c4ac3..98e3763 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>>> @@ -744,12 +744,24 @@ next_step:
> >>>>  		/* phase 3 */
> >>>>  		inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
> >>>>  		if (inode) {
> >>>> +			bool locked = false;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +			if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
> >>>> +				if (!mutex_trylock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex))
> >>>> +					continue;
> >>>> +				locked = true;
> >>>> +			}
> >>>> +
> >>>>  			start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
> >>>>  								+ ofs_in_node;
> >>>> -			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> >>>> +			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) &&
> >>>> +							S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> >>>>  				move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
> >>>>  			else
> >>>>  				move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
> >>>> +			if (locked)
> >>>> +				mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
> >>>> +
> >>>>  			stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
> >>>>  		}
> >>>>  	}
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>>> index 8c698e1..24aab3f 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>>> @@ -575,6 +575,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> >>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
> >>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
> >>>>  	mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
> >>>> +	mutex_init(&fi->dio_mutex);
> >>>>  
> >>>>  	/* Will be used by directory only */
> >>>>  	fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
> >>>> -- 
> >>>> 2.8.2.311.gee88674
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > 
> > .
> > 

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO

[Chao Yu]

On 2016/7/7 6:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 10:10:57AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2016/7/6 8:24, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jul 01, 2016 at 02:03:17PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>>>
>>>> On 2016/7/1 8:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> Hi Chao,
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 04:42:48PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
>>>>>> face race case as below:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For write case:
>>>>>> Thread A				Thread B
>>>>>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>>>>>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>>>>>  - f2fs_direct_IO
>>>>>>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>>>>>    - do_direct_IO
>>>>>>     - get_more_blocks
>>>>>> 					- f2fs_gc
>>>>>> 					 - do_garbage_collect
>>>>>> 					  - gc_data_segment
>>>>>> 					   - move_data_page
>>>>>> 					    - do_write_data_page
>>>>>> 					    migrate data block to new block address
>>>>>>    - dio_bio_submit
>>>>>>    update user data to old block address
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For read case:
>>>>>> Thread A                                Thread B
>>>>>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>>>>>  - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>>>>>  - f2fs_direct_IO
>>>>>>   - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>>>>>    - do_direct_IO
>>>>>>     - get_more_blocks
>>>>>> 					- f2fs_balance_fs
>>>>>> 					 - f2fs_gc
>>>>>> 					  - do_garbage_collect
>>>>>> 					   - gc_data_segment
>>>>>> 					    - move_data_page
>>>>>> 					     - do_write_data_page
>>>>>> 					     migrate data block to new block address
>>>>>> 					  - write_checkpoint
>>>>>> 					   - do_checkpoint
>>>>>> 					    - clear_prefree_segments
>>>>>> 					     - f2fs_issue_discard
>>>>>>                                              discard old block adress
>>>>>>    - dio_bio_submit
>>>>>>    update user buffer from obsolete block address
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
>>>>>> against with each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/data.c  |  2 ++
>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/f2fs.h  |  1 +
>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/gc.c    | 14 +++++++++++++-
>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/super.c |  1 +
>>>>>>  4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>> index ba4963f..08dc060 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>> @@ -1716,7 +1716,9 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  	trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> +	mutex_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>>>>  	err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
>>>>>> +	mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>>>
>>>>> This means we need to sacrifice entire parallism even in the normal cases?
>>>>> Can we find another way?
>>>>
>>>> 1. For dio write vs dio write, writer will grab i_mutex before dio_mutex, so
>>>> anyway, concurrent dio writes will be exclusive.
>>>>
>>>> 2. For dio write vs gc, keep using dio_mutex for making them exclusive.
>>>>
>>>> 3. For dio read vs dio read, and dio read vs gc, what about adding dio_rwsem to
>>>> control the parallelism?
>>>>
>>>> 4. For dio write vs dio read, we grab different lock (write grabs dio_mutex,
>>>> read grabs dio_rwsem), so there is no race condition.
>>>
>>> How about adding a flag in a dio inode and avoiding GCs for there-in blocks?
>>
>> Hmm.. IMO, without lock, it's hard to keep the sequence that let GC checking the
>> flag after setting it, right?
> 
> Okay, could you add dio_rwsem for now?
> Later, we may need to take a look at dio_overwrite case to mitigate inode_lock
> contention likewise xfs. :)

Sounds good if we can support concurrent overwrite dio! :)

Let me send v3.

Thanks,

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>>>>
>>>>>>  	if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
>>>>>>  		if (err > 0)
>>>>>>  			set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>> index bd82b6d..a241576 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
>>>>>>  	struct list_head inmem_pages;	/* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
>>>>>>  	struct mutex inmem_lock;	/* lock for inmemory pages */
>>>>>>  	struct extent_tree *extent_tree;	/* cached extent_tree entry */
>>>>>> +	struct mutex dio_mutex;		/* avoid racing between dio and gc */
>>>>>>  };
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>>>> index c2c4ac3..98e3763 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>>>> @@ -744,12 +744,24 @@ next_step:
>>>>>>  		/* phase 3 */
>>>>>>  		inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
>>>>>>  		if (inode) {
>>>>>> +			bool locked = false;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +			if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
>>>>>> +				if (!mutex_trylock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex))
>>>>>> +					continue;
>>>>>> +				locked = true;
>>>>>> +			}
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>  			start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
>>>>>>  								+ ofs_in_node;
>>>>>> -			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>>>>> +			if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) &&
>>>>>> +							S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>>>>>  				move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
>>>>>>  			else
>>>>>>  				move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
>>>>>> +			if (locked)
>>>>>> +				mutex_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->dio_mutex);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>  			stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
>>>>>>  		}
>>>>>>  	}
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>> index 8c698e1..24aab3f 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>> @@ -575,6 +575,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>>>>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
>>>>>>  	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
>>>>>>  	mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
>>>>>> +	mutex_init(&fi->dio_mutex);
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>  	/* Will be used by directory only */
>>>>>>  	fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 2.8.2.311.gee88674
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San
> Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries
> present their vision of the future. This family event has something for
> everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today.
> http://sdm.link/attshape
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> 

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to return correct trimmed block number in FITRIM interface

[Chao Yu]

Hi all,

I think this patch should be wrong, since during fstrim, we should not issue
discard for prefree segment redundantly.

So, Jaegeuk, could you please drop this patch in your branch?

Sorry for the noise.

Thanks,

On 2016/6/30 16:42, Chao Yu wrote:
> During tiggering fstrim, in case of issuing discard for prefree segments,
> we miss acclumulating trimmed block number which will be return to user.
> Fix it.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index 6d16ecf..5dc14d6 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -732,15 +732,20 @@ void clear_prefree_segments(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc)
>  		if (!test_opt(sbi, LFS) || sbi->segs_per_sec == 1) {
>  			f2fs_issue_discard(sbi, START_BLOCK(sbi, start),
>  				(end - start) << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg);
> +			cpc->trimmed +=
> +				(end - start) << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg;
>  			continue;
>  		}
>  next:
>  		secno = GET_SECNO(sbi, start);
>  		start_segno = secno * sbi->segs_per_sec;
>  		if (!IS_CURSEC(sbi, secno) &&
> -			!get_valid_blocks(sbi, start, sbi->segs_per_sec))
> +			!get_valid_blocks(sbi, start, sbi->segs_per_sec)) {
>  			f2fs_issue_discard(sbi, START_BLOCK(sbi, start_segno),
>  				sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg);
> +			cpc->trimmed +=
> +				sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg;
> +		}
>  
>  		start = start_segno + sbi->segs_per_sec;
>  		if (start < end)
>