On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/7/14 10:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2021/7/14 7:34, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > On 07/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > On 2021/7/8 1:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > On 07/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > On 2021/7/2 9:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 07/02, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 2021/7/2 1:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 06/01, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > [1]
> > > > > > > > > > > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg15126.html
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > As [1] reported, if lower device doesn't support write
> > > > > > > > > > > barrier, in below
> > > > > > > > > > > case:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > - write page #0; persist
> > > > > > > > > > > - overwrite page #0
> > > > > > > > > > > - fsync
> > > > > > > > > > > - write data page #0 OPU into device's cache
> > > > > > > > > > > - write inode page into device's cache
> > > > > > > > > > > - issue flush
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Well, we have preflush for node writes, so I don't think
> > > > > > > > > > this is the case.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > fio.op_flags |= REQ_PREFLUSH | REQ_FUA;
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is only used for atomic write case, right?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I mean the common case which is called from
> > > > > > > > > f2fs_issue_flush() in
> > > > > > > > > f2fs_do_sync_file().
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How about adding PREFLUSH when writing node blocks aligned to
> > > > > > > > the above set?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You mean implementation like v1 as below?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/[email protected]/
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Yea, I think so. :P
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer v2, we may have several schemes to improve performance with
> > > > > v2, e.g.
> > > > > - use inplace IO to avoid newly added preflush
> > > > > - use flush_merge option to avoid redundant preflush
> > > > > - if lower device supports barrier IO, we can avoid newly added
> > > > > preflush
> > > >
> > > > Doesn't v2 give one more flush than v1? Why do you want to take worse
> > > > one and
> > >
> > > FUA implies an extra preflush command or similar mechanism in lower
> > > device to keep data
> > > in bio being persistent before this command's completion.
> > >
> > > Also if lower device doesn't support FUA natively, block layer turns it
> > > into an empty
> > > PREFLUSH command.
> > >
> > > So, it's hard to say which one will win the benchmark game, maybe we need
> > > some
> > > performance data before making the choice, but you know, it depends on
> > > device's
> > > character.
> >
> > I was looking at # of bios.
> >
> > >
> > > > try to improve back? Not clear the benefit on v2.
> > >
> > > Well, if user suffer and complain performance regression with v1, any
> > > plan to improve it?
> > >
> > > I just thought about plan B/C/D for no matter v1 or v2.
> >
> > I assumed you wanted v2 since it might be used for B/C/D improvements. But,
> > it
> > seems it wasn't. My point is to save one bio, but piggyback the flag to the
> > device driver.
>
> I doubt the conclusion...but it needs to get some data to prove it.
>
> I think the right way is merging v1 now to fix the bug firstly, and let me do
> the comparison on them a little bit later to see whether we need another
> implementation... thoughts?
Chao, could you please post v1 with an updated description?
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And please see do_checkpoint(), we call
> > > > > > > > > f2fs_flush_device_cache() and
> > > > > > > > > commit_checkpoint() separately to keep persistence order of
> > > > > > > > > CP datas.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > See commit 46706d5917f4 ("f2fs: flush cp pack except cp pack
> > > > > > > > > 2 page at first")
> > > > > > > > > for details.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If SPO is triggered during flush command, inode page can
> > > > > > > > > > > be persisted
> > > > > > > > > > > before data page #0, so that after recovery, inode page
> > > > > > > > > > > can be recovered
> > > > > > > > > > > with new physical block address of data page #0, however
> > > > > > > > > > > there may
> > > > > > > > > > > contains dummy data in new physical block address.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Then what user will see is: after overwrite & fsync +
> > > > > > > > > > > SPO, old data in
> > > > > > > > > > > file was corrupted, if any user do care about such case,
> > > > > > > > > > > we can suggest
> > > > > > > > > > > user to use STRICT fsync mode, in this mode, we will
> > > > > > > > > > > force to trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > preflush command to persist data in device cache in prior
> > > > > > > > > > > to node
> > > > > > > > > > > writeback, it avoids potential data corruption during
> > > > > > > > > > > fsync().
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
> > > > > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > > > > v2:
> > > > > > > > > > > - fix this by adding additional preflush command rather
> > > > > > > > > > > than using
> > > > > > > > > > > atomic write flow.
> > > > > > > > > > > fs/f2fs/file.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
> > > > > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+)
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > > > > > index 7d5311d54f63..238ca2a733ac 100644
> > > > > > > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> > > > > > > > > > > @@ -301,6 +301,20 @@ static int f2fs_do_sync_file(struct
> > > > > > > > > > > file *file, loff_t start, loff_t end,
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > f2fs_exist_written_data(sbi, ino, UPDATE_INO))
> > > > > > > > > > > goto flush_out;
> > > > > > > > > > > goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > > + } else {
> > > > > > > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > > > > > > + * for OPU case, during fsync(), node can be
> > > > > > > > > > > persisted before
> > > > > > > > > > > + * data when lower device doesn't support write
> > > > > > > > > > > barrier, result
> > > > > > > > > > > + * in data corruption after SPO.
> > > > > > > > > > > + * So for strict fsync mode, force to trigger
> > > > > > > > > > > preflush to keep
> > > > > > > > > > > + * data/node write order to avoid potential
> > > > > > > > > > > data corruption.
> > > > > > > > > > > + */
> > > > > > > > > > > + if (F2FS_OPTION(sbi).fsync_mode ==
> > > > > > > > > > > FSYNC_MODE_STRICT &&
> > > > > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > > > > !atomic) {
> > > > > > > > > > > + ret = f2fs_issue_flush(sbi,
> > > > > > > > > > > inode->i_ino);
> > > > > > > > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > > > > > > > + goto out;
> > > > > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > > > > go_write:
> > > > > > > > > > > /*
> > > > > > > > > > > --
> > > > > > > > > > > 2.29.2
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
