On 2018/4/10 12:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 04/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2018/4/10 2:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 04/08, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2018/4/5 11:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 04/04, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> This patch enlarges block plug coverage in __issue_discard_cmd, in
>>>>>> order to collect more pending bios before issuing them, to avoid
>>>>>> being disturbed by previous discard I/O in IO aware discard mode.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, then we need to wait for huge discard IO for over 10 secs, which
>>>>
>>>> We found that total discard latency is rely on total discard number we 
>>>> issued
>>>> last time instead of range or length discard covered. IMO, if we don't 
>>>> change
>>>> .max_requests value, we will not suffer longer latency.
>>>>
>>>>> will affect following read/write IOs accordingly. In order to avoid that,
>>>>> we actually need to limit the discard size.
>>
>> Do you mean limit discard count or discard length?
> 
> Both of them.
> 
>>
>>>>
>>>> If you are worry about I/O interference in between discard and rw, I 
>>>> suggest to
>>>> decrease .max_requests value.
>>>
>>> What do you mean? This will produce more pending requests in the queue?
>>
>> I mean after applying this patch, we can queue more discard IOs in plug 
>> inside
>> task, otherwise, previous issued discard in block layer can make is_idle() 
>> be false,
>> then it can stop IO awared user to issue pending discard command.
> 
> Then, unplug will issue lots of discard commands, which affects the following 
> rw
> latencies. My preference would be issuing discard commands one by one as much 
> as
> possible.

Hmm.. for you concern, we can turn down IO priority of discard from background?

Thanks,

> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 7 +++++--
>>>>>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>> index 8f0b5ba46315..4287e208c040 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>> @@ -1208,10 +1208,12 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct 
>>>>>> f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>>>>>                  pend_list = &dcc->pend_list[i];
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>                  mutex_lock(&dcc->cmd_lock);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> +                blk_start_plug(&plug);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>                  if (list_empty(pend_list))
>>>>>>                          goto next;
>>>>>>                  f2fs_bug_on(sbi, !__check_rb_tree_consistence(sbi, 
>>>>>> &dcc->root));
>>>>>> -                blk_start_plug(&plug);
>>>>>>                  list_for_each_entry_safe(dc, tmp, pend_list, list) {
>>>>>>                          f2fs_bug_on(sbi, dc->state != D_PREP);
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> @@ -1227,8 +1229,9 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info 
>>>>>> *sbi,
>>>>>>                          if (++iter >= dpolicy->max_requests)
>>>>>>                                  break;
>>>>>>                  }
>>>>>> -                blk_finish_plug(&plug);
>>>>>>  next:
>>>>>> +                blk_finish_plug(&plug);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>>                  mutex_unlock(&dcc->cmd_lock);
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>                  if (iter >= dpolicy->max_requests)
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 2.15.0.55.gc2ece9dc4de6
>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
> 
> .
> 


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

Reply via email to