Hi,
here the nogc patch
As changelog description for this one, we could put:
add mount option to disable garbage collection
Thanks in advance
Bye,
David Arendt
On 03/28/10 03:55, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, 27 Mar 2010 21:00:52 +0100, David Arendt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> here the revised version of the patch
>>
>> As changelog description we could put:
>>
>> add options for cleaning based on number of free segments
>>
> Thanks.
>
> Ok, it looks fine to me.
>
>
>> In order to pass different config files to cleaner while not increasing
>> mount options, another solution might be adding a mount option
>> nocleanerd to disable staring of cleanerd. I know, there is mount -i,
>> but this option would have the advantage that it could be used in
>> /etc/fstab. In this way, cleaner could be started manually with whatever
>> options are needed. What would you think about it ?
>>
> Agreed.
>
> Maybe name of the mount option should be "nocleaner" or "nogc" because
> "nocleanerd" implies how it is implemented.
>
>
>> Anyway I think this should be part of a second patch as it is
>> implementing different functionality.
>>
> Yes, it should be separate from the first one.
>
> Thanks,
> Ryusuke Konishi
>
>
>> On 03/27/10 18:48, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
>>
>>> Hi David,
>>> On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 06:35:00 +0100, David Arendt wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> just for completeness, here is a re-post of the complete patch using
>>>> cleanerd->c_running instead of local variable "sleeping".
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>> David Arendt
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sorry for my late response.
>>>
>>> I'm planning to apply your patch.
>>>
>>> The patch looks reducible some more, for example, the preparation:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> + if (cleanerd->c_config.cf_min_clean_segments > 0) {
>>>> + syslog(LOG_INFO, "cleaner paused");
>>>> + cleanerd->c_running = 0;
>>>> + timeout.tv_sec =
>>>> cleanerd->c_config.cf_clean_check_interval;
>>>> + timeout.tv_nsec = 0;
>>>> + }
>>>> + else
>>>> + cleanerd->c_running = 1;
>>>> +
>>>>
>>>>
>>> can be simplified as follows:
>>>
>>> if (cleanerd->c_config.cf_min_clean_segments == 0)
>>> cleanerd->c_running = 1;
>>>
>>> And, the status control using cleanerd->c_running seems to have room
>>> for improvement. Except for these trivial matters, your change looks
>>> simple but effective, and is flawlessly keeping compatibility.
>>>
>>> If you have a revised patch, please send me for merge. Also, I would
>>> appreciate it if you could write some changelog description.
>>>
>>> Thank you in advance,
>>> Ryusuke Konishi
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 03/17/10 19:11, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:24:28 +0100, David Arendt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well I didn't know that a few days can pass as fast :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have attached the patch to this mail.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Until now the patch has only been shortly tested on a loop device, so it
>>>>>> might contain bugs and destroy your data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for posting the patch!
>>>>>
>>>>> The patch looks rougly ok to me.
>>>>> I'll comment on it later.
>>>>>
>>>>> At first glance, I felt it would be nice if cleanerd->c_running is
>>>>> nicely used instead of adding a local variable "sleeping".
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Ryusuke Konishi
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you decide to apply it, please change the default values to the ones
>>>>>> you find the most appropriate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance,
>>>>>> Bye,
>>>>>> David Arendt
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 03/15/10 16:58, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:03:45 +0100, David Arendt wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am posting this again to the correct mailing list as I cc'ed it to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> old inactive one.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe I am understanding something wrong, but if I would use the count
>>>>>>>> of reclaimed segments, how could I determine if one cleaning pass has
>>>>>>>> finished as I don't know in advance how many segments could be
>>>>>>>> reclaimed ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For example, how about this?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nmax = (number of segments) - (number of clean segments)
>>>>>>> nblk = (max_clean_segments - (number of clean segments)) *
>>>>>>> (number of blocks per segment)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> * If (number of clean segments) < min_clean_segments, then start
>>>>>>> reclamation
>>>>>>> * Try to reclaim nmax segments (at a maximum).
>>>>>>> * When the cleaner found and freed nblk blocks during the
>>>>>>> reclamation, then end one cleaning pass.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Another approach would be not basing cleaning on a whole cleaning pass
>>>>>>>> but instead creating these addtional configfile options:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # start cleaning if less than 100 free segments
>>>>>>>> min_clean_segments 100
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # stop cleaning if more than 200 free segments
>>>>>>>> max_clean_segments 200
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # check free space once an hour
>>>>>>>> segment_check_interval 3600
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Basically in this example if less than 800mb are free cleaner is run
>>>>>>>> until 1600mb are free. If min_clean_segments is 0, the cleaner would do
>>>>>>>> normal operation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The first two parameters look Ok.
>>>>>>> (I've already referred to these in the above example.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We may well be able to make segment_check_interval more frequent.
>>>>>>> or do you have something in mind?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you mean interval of cleaning passes ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For this solution only changes in configfile loading and
>>>>>>>> nilfs_cleanerd_clean_loop would be necessary which would lower the risk
>>>>>>>> of introducing new bugs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If this solution is ok for you, I will implement it this way and send
>>>>>>>> you the patch in a few days. Also tell me if the names I have choosen
>>>>>>>> for the options are ok for you or if you would prefer other ones.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The option names look fine to me.
>>>>>>> Or should we use percentage for them?
>>>>>>> (number of segments is device dependent)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there anything else that isn't clear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks in advance
>>>>>>>> Bye,
>>>>>>>> David Arendt
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Ryusuke Konishi
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 03/14/10 15:28, Ryusuke Konishi wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:00:19 +0100, [email protected] wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I will try to implement this myself then. Concerning the
>>>>>>>>>> nilfs_cleanerd_select segments function I was unclear in my post. In
>>>>>>>>>> fact I did not mean the return value but the first element from the
>>>>>>>>>> segnums array.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ok. So you thought of determining termination of one cleaning pass by
>>>>>>>>> the segment number stored preliminarily.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why not just use count of processed (i.e. reclaimed) segments?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Note that it's not guranteed that segments are selected in the order
>>>>>>>>> of segment number though this premise looks almost right.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It depends on the behavior of segment allocator and the current
>>>>>>>>> "Select-oldest" algorithm used behind
>>>>>>>>> nilfs_cleanerd_select_segments(). Nilfs log writer occasionally
>>>>>>>>> behaves differently and disturbs this order.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you can ignore the exceptional behavior of the segment
>>>>>>>>> allocator, and rotate target segments with skipping free or mostly
>>>>>>>>> in-use ones. In that case, nilfs_cleanerd_select_segments() should be
>>>>>>>>> modified to select segments in the order of segment number.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>> Ryusuke Konishi
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs"
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>>>>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
>>> the body of a message to [email protected]
>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>>
>>
diff -ur nilfs2-utils.orig/man/mount.nilfs2.8 nilfs2-utils/man/mount.nilfs2.8
--- nilfs2-utils.orig/man/mount.nilfs2.8 2010-03-14 15:11:30.916690347
+0100
+++ nilfs2-utils/man/mount.nilfs2.8 2010-03-28 12:16:49.785942470 +0200
@@ -108,6 +108,11 @@
elapsed time from its creation is smaller than
\fIprotection-period\fP.
.TP
+.BR nogc
+Disable garbage collection. The cleaner daemon will not be started.
+It can be be started manually, but in that case it must also be
+stopped manually before unmounting.
+.TP
.BR order=relaxed " / " order=strict
Specify order semantics for file data. Metadata is always written to
follow the POSIX semantics about the order of filesystem operations.
diff -ur nilfs2-utils.orig/sbin/mount/mount.nilfs2.c
nilfs2-utils/sbin/mount/mount.nilfs2.c
--- nilfs2-utils.orig/sbin/mount/mount.nilfs2.c 2010-03-14 15:11:30.918691251
+0100
+++ nilfs2-utils/sbin/mount/mount.nilfs2.c 2010-03-28 14:05:28.861362988
+0200
@@ -74,6 +74,9 @@
const char pp_opt_fmt[] = PPOPT_NAME "=%lu";
typedef unsigned long pp_opt_t;
+const char nogc_opt_fmt[] = NOGCOPT_NAME;
+typedef int nogc_opt_t;
+
struct mount_options {
char *fstype;
char *opts;
@@ -329,6 +332,7 @@
int type;
int mounted;
pp_opt_t protperiod;
+ nogc_opt_t nogc;
};
static int check_mtab(void)
@@ -391,6 +395,8 @@
if (find_opt(mc->m.mnt_opts, pp_opt_fmt, &prot_period) >= 0)
mi->protperiod = prot_period;
+ mi->nogc = (find_opt(mc->m.mnt_opts, nogc_opt_fmt, NULL) >= 0);
+
switch (mo->flags & (MS_RDONLY | MS_REMOUNT)) {
case 0: /* overlapping rw-mount */
error(_("%s: the device already has a rw-mount on %s."
@@ -426,11 +432,13 @@
static int
do_mount_one(struct nilfs_mount_info *mi, const struct mount_options *mo)
{
- int res, errsv;
- char *exopts;
+ int res, errsv, mtab_ok;
+ char *tmpexopts, *exopts;
pp_opt_t prot_period;
- exopts = change_opt(mo->extra_opts, pp_opt_fmt, &prot_period, "");
+ tmpexopts = change_opt(mo->extra_opts, pp_opt_fmt, &prot_period, "");
+ exopts = change_opt(tmpexopts, nogc_opt_fmt, NULL, "");
+ my_free(tmpexopts);
res = mount(mi->device, mi->mntdir, fstype, mo->flags & ~MS_NOSYS,
exopts);
@@ -450,9 +458,12 @@
}
if (mi->type != RW2RO_REMOUNT && mi->type != RW2RW_REMOUNT)
goto out;
+
+ mtab_ok = check_mtab();
+
/* Cleaner daemon was stopped and it needs to run */
/* because filesystem is still mounted */
- if (check_mtab()) {
+ if (!mi->nogc && mtab_ok) {
/* Restarting cleaner daemon */
if (start_cleanerd(mi->device, mi->mntdir, mi->protperiod,
&mi->gcpid) == 0) {
@@ -481,7 +492,7 @@
char *exopts;
int rungc;
- rungc = !(mo->flags & MS_RDONLY) && !(mo->flags & MS_BIND);
+ rungc = (find_opt(mo->extra_opts, nogc_opt_fmt, NULL) < 0) &&
!(mo->flags & MS_RDONLY) && !(mo->flags & MS_BIND);
if (!check_mtab()) {
if (rungc)
diff -ur nilfs2-utils.orig/sbin/mount/mount.nilfs2.h
nilfs2-utils/sbin/mount/mount.nilfs2.h
--- nilfs2-utils.orig/sbin/mount/mount.nilfs2.h 2010-03-14 15:11:30.918691251
+0100
+++ nilfs2-utils/sbin/mount/mount.nilfs2.h 2010-03-28 11:05:38.717647856
+0200
@@ -14,6 +14,7 @@
#define CLEANERD_NAME "nilfs_cleanerd"
#define PIDOPT_NAME "gcpid"
#define PPOPT_NAME "pp"
+#define NOGCOPT_NAME "nogc"
#define CLEANERD_WAIT_RETRY_COUNT 3
#define CLEANERD_WAIT_RETRY_INTERVAL 2 /* in seconds */
