Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
On 12/28, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > On 12/28/2017 12:26 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 12/23, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2017/12/15 10:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> On 12/14, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > I need your comment about the fs_iohint mount option. > > a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate user hints to low layer. > b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore user hints, and use hints which is generated > with F2FS. > > Chao suggests this option. because user hints are more accurate than > file system. > > This is resonable, But I have some concerns about this option. > The first thing is that blocks of a segments have different hints. This > could make GC less effective. > The second is that the separation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is > really needed. I think that difference between them is a little ambigous > for users, and LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME is converted to different > hints by F2FS. > >>> > >>> I think what we really can do would assign many user hints to our 3 DATA > >>> logs likewise rw_hint_to_seg_type(), since it's just hints for user data. > >>> Then, we can decide how to keep that as much as possible, since we have > >>> another filesystem metadata such as meta and nodes. In addition, I don't > >>> think we have to keep the original user-hints which makes F2FS logs be > >>> messed up. > >>> > >>> With that mind, I can think of the below cases. Especially, if user wants > >>> to keep their io_hints, we'd better recommend to use direct_io w/o > >>> fs_iohints. > >> > >> > >> > >>> In order to keep this policy, I think fs_iohints would be better to be a > >>> feature set by mkfs.f2fs and detected by sysfs entries for users. > >>> > >>> 1) w/ fs_iohints > >>> > >>> UserF2FS Block > >>> --- > >>> Meta WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > >>> HOT_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NOTSET > >>> WARM_NODE -' > >>> COLD_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NONE > >>> ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > >>> extention list -' -' > >>> WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME -' -' > >>> WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT > >>> > >>> -- buffered_io > >>> WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_LONG > >>> WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' > >>> WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' > >>> WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' > >>> > >>> -- direct_io (Not recommendable) > >>> WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET > >>> WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE > >>> WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > >>> WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG > >> > >> Agreed with above IO hint mapping rule. > >> > >>> > >>> 2) w/o fs_iohints > >>> > >>> UserF2FS Block > >>> --- > >>> Meta - > >>> HOT_NODE - > >>> WARM_NODE - > >>> COLD_NODE - > >>> ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA - > >>> extention list -' - > >>> > >>> -- buffered_io > >>> WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA - > >>> WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA - > >>> WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA - > >>> WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' - > >>> WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' - > >>> WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' - > >> > >> Now we recommend direct_io if user wants to give IO hint for storage, I > >> suspect > >> that user would suffer performance regression issue w/o buffered IO. > >> > >> Another problem is that, now, in Android, it will be very hard to prompt > >> application to migrate their IO pattern from buffered IO to direct IO, one > >> possible way is distinguishing user data lifetime from FWK, e.g. set > >> WRITE_LIFE_SHORT for cache file or tmp file, set WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME for > >> media file. > >> > >> In order to support buffered_io, would it be better to change mapping as > >> below? > >> > >> -- buffered_io > >> WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > >> WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT > >> WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET > >> WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' > >> WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' > >> WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' > > > > Agreed, and it makes more sense th
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Jaegeuk, On 12/28/2017 12:26 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 12/23, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2017/12/15 10:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 12/14, Hyunchul Lee wrote: Hi Jaegeuk, I need your comment about the fs_iohint mount option. a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate user hints to low layer. b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore user hints, and use hints which is generated with F2FS. Chao suggests this option. because user hints are more accurate than file system. This is resonable, But I have some concerns about this option. The first thing is that blocks of a segments have different hints. This could make GC less effective. The second is that the separation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is really needed. I think that difference between them is a little ambigous for users, and LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME is converted to different hints by F2FS. >>> >>> I think what we really can do would assign many user hints to our 3 DATA >>> logs likewise rw_hint_to_seg_type(), since it's just hints for user data. >>> Then, we can decide how to keep that as much as possible, since we have >>> another filesystem metadata such as meta and nodes. In addition, I don't >>> think we have to keep the original user-hints which makes F2FS logs be >>> messed up. >>> >>> With that mind, I can think of the below cases. Especially, if user wants >>> to keep their io_hints, we'd better recommend to use direct_io w/o >>> fs_iohints. >> >> >> >>> In order to keep this policy, I think fs_iohints would be better to be a >>> feature set by mkfs.f2fs and detected by sysfs entries for users. >>> >>> 1) w/ fs_iohints >>> >>> UserF2FS Block >>> --- >>> Meta WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM >>> HOT_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NOTSET >>> WARM_NODE -' >>> COLD_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NONE >>> ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME >>> extention list -' -' >>> WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME -' -' >>> WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT >>> >>> -- buffered_io >>> WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_LONG >>> WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' >>> WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' >>> WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' >>> >>> -- direct_io (Not recommendable) >>> WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET >>> WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE >>> WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM >>> WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG >> >> Agreed with above IO hint mapping rule. >> >>> >>> 2) w/o fs_iohints >>> >>> UserF2FS Block >>> --- >>> Meta - >>> HOT_NODE - >>> WARM_NODE - >>> COLD_NODE - >>> ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA - >>> extention list -' - >>> >>> -- buffered_io >>> WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA - >>> WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA - >>> WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA - >>> WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' - >>> WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' - >>> WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' - >> >> Now we recommend direct_io if user wants to give IO hint for storage, I >> suspect >> that user would suffer performance regression issue w/o buffered IO. >> >> Another problem is that, now, in Android, it will be very hard to prompt >> application to migrate their IO pattern from buffered IO to direct IO, one >> possible way is distinguishing user data lifetime from FWK, e.g. set >> WRITE_LIFE_SHORT for cache file or tmp file, set WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME for >> media file. >> >> In order to support buffered_io, would it be better to change mapping as >> below? >> >> -- buffered_io >> WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME >> WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT >> WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET >> WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' >> WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' >> WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' > > Agreed, and it makes more sense that we'd better keep the write hints on > userdata given by applications. > > BTW, since we couldn't get any performance numbers with these, how about > adding a mount option like "-o iohints=MODE" where MODE may be one of > "fs-based", "user-based",
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
On 12/23, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2017/12/15 10:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 12/14, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > >> Hi Jaegeuk, > >> > >> I need your comment about the fs_iohint mount option. > >> > >> a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate user hints to low layer. > >> b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore user hints, and use hints which is generated > >> with F2FS. > >> > >> Chao suggests this option. because user hints are more accurate than > >> file system. > >> > >> This is resonable, But I have some concerns about this option. > >> The first thing is that blocks of a segments have different hints. This > >> could make GC less effective. > >> The second is that the separation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is > >> really needed. I think that difference between them is a little ambigous > >> for users, and LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME is converted to different > >> hints by F2FS. > > > > I think what we really can do would assign many user hints to our 3 DATA > > logs likewise rw_hint_to_seg_type(), since it's just hints for user data. > > Then, we can decide how to keep that as much as possible, since we have > > another filesystem metadata such as meta and nodes. In addition, I don't > > think we have to keep the original user-hints which makes F2FS logs be > > messed up. > > > > With that mind, I can think of the below cases. Especially, if user wants > > to keep their io_hints, we'd better recommend to use direct_io w/o > > fs_iohints. > > > > > In order to keep this policy, I think fs_iohints would be better to be a > > feature set by mkfs.f2fs and detected by sysfs entries for users. > > > > 1) w/ fs_iohints > > > > UserF2FS Block > > --- > > Meta WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > > HOT_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NOTSET > > WARM_NODE -' > > COLD_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NONE > > ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > > extention list -' -' > > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME -' -' > > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT > > > > -- buffered_io > > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_LONG > > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' > > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' > > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' > > > > -- direct_io (Not recommendable) > > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET > > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE > > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG > > Agreed with above IO hint mapping rule. > > > > > 2) w/o fs_iohints > > > > UserF2FS Block > > --- > > Meta - > > HOT_NODE - > > WARM_NODE - > > COLD_NODE - > > ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA - > > extention list -' - > > > > -- buffered_io > > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA - > > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA - > > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA - > > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' - > > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' - > > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' - > > Now we recommend direct_io if user wants to give IO hint for storage, I > suspect > that user would suffer performance regression issue w/o buffered IO. > > Another problem is that, now, in Android, it will be very hard to prompt > application to migrate their IO pattern from buffered IO to direct IO, one > possible way is distinguishing user data lifetime from FWK, e.g. set > WRITE_LIFE_SHORT for cache file or tmp file, set WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME for media > file. > > In order to support buffered_io, would it be better to change mapping as > below? > > -- buffered_io > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' Agreed, and it makes more sense that we'd better keep the write hints on userdata given by applications. BTW, since we couldn't get any performance numbers with these, how about adding a mount option like "-o iohints=MODE" where MODE may be one of "fs-based", "user-based", and "off"? Thanks, > > Thanks, > > > > > -- direct_io > > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
On 2017/12/15 10:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 12/14, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >> Hi Jaegeuk, >> >> I need your comment about the fs_iohint mount option. >> >> a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate user hints to low layer. >> b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore user hints, and use hints which is generated >> with F2FS. >> >> Chao suggests this option. because user hints are more accurate than >> file system. >> >> This is resonable, But I have some concerns about this option. >> The first thing is that blocks of a segments have different hints. This >> could make GC less effective. >> The second is that the separation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is >> really needed. I think that difference between them is a little ambigous >> for users, and LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME is converted to different >> hints by F2FS. > > I think what we really can do would assign many user hints to our 3 DATA > logs likewise rw_hint_to_seg_type(), since it's just hints for user data. > Then, we can decide how to keep that as much as possible, since we have > another filesystem metadata such as meta and nodes. In addition, I don't > think we have to keep the original user-hints which makes F2FS logs be > messed up. > > With that mind, I can think of the below cases. Especially, if user wants > to keep their io_hints, we'd better recommend to use direct_io w/o fs_iohints. > In order to keep this policy, I think fs_iohints would be better to be a > feature set by mkfs.f2fs and detected by sysfs entries for users. > > 1) w/ fs_iohints > > UserF2FS Block > --- > Meta WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > HOT_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NOTSET > WARM_NODE -' > COLD_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NONE > ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > extention list -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT > > -- buffered_io > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_LONG > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' > > -- direct_io (Not recommendable) > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG Agreed with above IO hint mapping rule. > > 2) w/o fs_iohints > > UserF2FS Block > --- > Meta - > HOT_NODE - > WARM_NODE - > COLD_NODE - > ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA - > extention list -' - > > -- buffered_io > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA - > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA - > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA - > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' - > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' - > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' - Now we recommend direct_io if user wants to give IO hint for storage, I suspect that user would suffer performance regression issue w/o buffered IO. Another problem is that, now, in Android, it will be very hard to prompt application to migrate their IO pattern from buffered IO to direct IO, one possible way is distinguishing user data lifetime from FWK, e.g. set WRITE_LIFE_SHORT for cache file or tmp file, set WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME for media file. In order to support buffered_io, would it be better to change mapping as below? -- buffered_io WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' Thanks, > > -- direct_io > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG > > > Note that, I don't much care about how to manipulate streamid in nvme driver > in terms of LIFE_NONE or LIFE_NOTSET, since other drivers can handle them > in di
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Jaegeuk, Agreed. If Chao agrees with this policy, I will implement it. Thanks for the comment. On 12/15/2017 11:06 AM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 12/14, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >> Hi Jaegeuk, >> >> I need your comment about the fs_iohint mount option. >> >> a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate user hints to low layer. >> b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore user hints, and use hints which is generated >> with F2FS. >> >> Chao suggests this option. because user hints are more accurate than >> file system. >> >> This is resonable, But I have some concerns about this option. >> The first thing is that blocks of a segments have different hints. This >> could make GC less effective. >> The second is that the separation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is >> really needed. I think that difference between them is a little ambigous >> for users, and LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME is converted to different >> hints by F2FS. > > I think what we really can do would assign many user hints to our 3 DATA > logs likewise rw_hint_to_seg_type(), since it's just hints for user data. > Then, we can decide how to keep that as much as possible, since we have > another filesystem metadata such as meta and nodes. In addition, I don't > think we have to keep the original user-hints which makes F2FS logs be > messed up. > > With that mind, I can think of the below cases. Especially, if user wants > to keep their io_hints, we'd better recommend to use direct_io w/o fs_iohints. > In order to keep this policy, I think fs_iohints would be better to be a > feature set by mkfs.f2fs and detected by sysfs entries for users. > > 1) w/ fs_iohints > > UserF2FS Block > --- > Meta WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > HOT_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NOTSET > WARM_NODE -' > COLD_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NONE > ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > extention list -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT > > -- buffered_io > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_LONG > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' > > -- direct_io (Not recommendable) > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG > > 2) w/o fs_iohints > > UserF2FS Block > --- > Meta - > HOT_NODE - > WARM_NODE - > COLD_NODE - > ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA - > extention list -' - > > -- buffered_io > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA - > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA - > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA - > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' - > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' - > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' - > > -- direct_io > WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT > WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET > WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE > WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG > > > Note that, I don't much care about how to manipulate streamid in nvme driver > in terms of LIFE_NONE or LIFE_NOTSET, since other drivers can handle them > in different ways. Taking a look at the definition, at least, we don't need > to assume that those are same at all. For example, if we can expolit this in > UFS driver, we can pass all the stream ids to the device as context ids. > > Thanks, > >> >> Thanks. >> >> On 12/12/2017 11:45 AM, Chao Yu wrote: >>> Hi Hyunchul, >>> >>> On 2017/12/12 10:15, Hyunchul Lee wrote: Hi Chao, On 12/11/2017 10:15 PM, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Hyunchul, > > On 2017/12/1 16:28, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >> Hi Chao, >> >> On 11/30/2017 04:06 PM, Chao Yu wrote: >>> Hi Hyunchul, >>> >>> On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote: From: Hyunchul Lee This implements which hint is passed down to block layer for datas from the specific segment type. segment type
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
On 12/14, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > I need your comment about the fs_iohint mount option. > > a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate user hints to low layer. > b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore user hints, and use hints which is generated > with F2FS. > > Chao suggests this option. because user hints are more accurate than > file system. > > This is resonable, But I have some concerns about this option. > The first thing is that blocks of a segments have different hints. This > could make GC less effective. > The second is that the separation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is > really needed. I think that difference between them is a little ambigous > for users, and LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME is converted to different > hints by F2FS. I think what we really can do would assign many user hints to our 3 DATA logs likewise rw_hint_to_seg_type(), since it's just hints for user data. Then, we can decide how to keep that as much as possible, since we have another filesystem metadata such as meta and nodes. In addition, I don't think we have to keep the original user-hints which makes F2FS logs be messed up. With that mind, I can think of the below cases. Especially, if user wants to keep their io_hints, we'd better recommend to use direct_io w/o fs_iohints. In order to keep this policy, I think fs_iohints would be better to be a feature set by mkfs.f2fs and detected by sysfs entries for users. 1) w/ fs_iohints UserF2FS Block --- Meta WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM HOT_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NOTSET WARM_NODE -' COLD_NODE WRITE_LIFE_NONE ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME extention list -' -' WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME -' -' WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT -- buffered_io WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_LONG WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' -' -- direct_io (Not recommendable) WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG 2) w/o fs_iohints UserF2FS Block --- Meta - HOT_NODE - WARM_NODE - COLD_NODE - ioctl(cold) COLD_DATA - extention list -' - -- buffered_io WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA - WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA - WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA - WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' - WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' - WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' - -- direct_io WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME WRITE_LIFE_SHORTHOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_SHORT WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WARM_DATA WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET WRITE_LIFE_NONE -' WRITE_LIFE_NONE WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM -' WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM WRITE_LIFE_LONG -' WRITE_LIFE_LONG Note that, I don't much care about how to manipulate streamid in nvme driver in terms of LIFE_NONE or LIFE_NOTSET, since other drivers can handle them in different ways. Taking a look at the definition, at least, we don't need to assume that those are same at all. For example, if we can expolit this in UFS driver, we can pass all the stream ids to the device as context ids. Thanks, > > Thanks. > > On 12/12/2017 11:45 AM, Chao Yu wrote: > > Hi Hyunchul, > > > > On 2017/12/12 10:15, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > >> Hi Chao, > >> > >> On 12/11/2017 10:15 PM, Chao Yu wrote: > >>> Hi Hyunchul, > >>> > >>> On 2017/12/1 16:28, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On 11/30/2017 04:06 PM, Chao Yu wrote: > > Hi Hyunchul, > > > > On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > >> From: Hyunchul Lee > >> > >> This implements which hint is passed down to block layer > >> for datas from the specific segment type. > >> > >> segment type hints > >> - > >> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > >> WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE > >> HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG > >> HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > >> META
Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hello,
On 12/01, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 12/01/2017 04:28 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 11/30, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
> >>> From: Hyunchul Lee
> >>>
> >>> This implements which hint is passed down to block layer
> >>> for datas from the specific segment type.
> >>>
> >>> segment type hints
> >>> -
> >>> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
> >>> WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE
> >>> HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG
> >>> HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM
> >>> META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT
> >>
> >> The correspondence looks good to me.
> >
> > Still, I don't fully get the point. Why do we have to assign WRITE_LIFE_NONE
> > to WARM_DATA? Why not using WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET?
> >
>
> I think LIFE_NONE and LIFE_NOT_SET are the same. So I chose LIFE_NONE simply.
Same in what way?
WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET = 0,
WRITE_LIFE_NONE = 1,
Still, you didn't answer why we have to assign LIFE_NONE to WARM_DATA?
Thanks,
>
> Thanks.
>
> >>>
> >>> Many thanks to Chao Yu and Jaegeuk Kim for comments to
> >>> implement this patch.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Hyunchul Lee
> >>> ---
> >>> fs/f2fs/data.c| 1 +
> >>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h| 2 ++
> >>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 29 +
> >>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 ++
> >>> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>> index a7ae418..0919a43 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ int f2fs_submit_page_write(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
> >>> }
> >>> io->bio = __bio_alloc(sbi, fio->new_blkaddr,
> >>> BIO_MAX_PAGES, false);
> >>> + io->bio->bi_write_hint = io->write_hint;
> >>
> >> Need to assign bi_write_hint for IPU path?
> >>
> >> - rewrite_data_page
> >> - f2fs_submit_page_bio
> >>
> >>> io->fio = *fio;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>> index 7bcd148..be3cb0c 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>> @@ -969,6 +969,7 @@ struct f2fs_bio_info {
> >>> struct rw_semaphore io_rwsem; /* blocking op for bio */
> >>> spinlock_t io_lock; /* serialize DATA/NODE IOs */
> >>> struct list_head io_list; /* track fios */
> >>> + enum rw_hint write_hint;
> >>
> >> Add missing comment?
> >>
> >>> };
> >>>
> >>> #define FDEV(i) (sbi->devs[i])
> >>> @@ -2674,6 +2675,7 @@ int lookup_journal_in_cursum(struct f2fs_journal
> >>> *journal, int type,
> >>> int __init create_segment_manager_caches(void);
> >>> void destroy_segment_manager_caches(void);
> >>> int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint);
> >>> +enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type
> >>> temp);
> >>>
> >>> /*
> >>> * checkpoint.c
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>> index c117e09..0570db7 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>> @@ -2446,6 +2446,35 @@ int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint)
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >> It will be better to copy commit log here to declare correspondence
> >> more clearly.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> +enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp)
> >>> +{
> >>> + if (page == DATA) {
> >>> + switch (temp) {
> >>> + case WARM:
> >>> + return WRITE_LIFE_NONE;
> >>> + case COLD:
> >>> + return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
> >>> + case HOT:
> >>> + return WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
> >>> + }
> >>> + } else if (page == NODE) {
> >>> + switch (temp) {
> >>> + case WARM:
> >>> + case HOT:
> >>> + return WRITE_LIFE_LONG;
> >>> + case COLD:
> >>> + return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
> >>> + default:
> >>> + return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
> >>> + }
> >>> +
> >>> + } else {
> >>> + return WRITE_LIFE_SHORT;
> >>> + }
> >>> +}
> >>> +
> >>> static int __get_segment_type_2(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
> >>> {
> >>> if (fio->type == DATA)
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>> index a6c5dd4..51c19a0 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>> @@ -2508,6 +2508,8 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,
> >>> void *data, int silent)
> >>> sbi->write_io[i][j].bio = NULL;
> >>> spin_lock_init(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_lock);
> >>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_list);
> >>> + sbi->write_io[i][j].write_hint =
> >>> + io_type_to_rw_hint(i, j);
> >>> }
> >>> }
> >>>
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Jaegeuk, I need your comment about the fs_iohint mount option. a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate user hints to low layer. b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore user hints, and use hints which is generated with F2FS. Chao suggests this option. because user hints are more accurate than file system. This is resonable, But I have some concerns about this option. The first thing is that blocks of a segments have different hints. This could make GC less effective. The second is that the separation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is really needed. I think that difference between them is a little ambigous for users, and LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME is converted to different hints by F2FS. Thanks. On 12/12/2017 11:45 AM, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Hyunchul, > > On 2017/12/12 10:15, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >> Hi Chao, >> >> On 12/11/2017 10:15 PM, Chao Yu wrote: >>> Hi Hyunchul, >>> >>> On 2017/12/1 16:28, Hyunchul Lee wrote: Hi Chao, On 11/30/2017 04:06 PM, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Hyunchul, > > On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >> From: Hyunchul Lee >> >> This implements which hint is passed down to block layer >> for datas from the specific segment type. >> >> segment type hints >> - >> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME >> WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE >> HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG >> HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM >> META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT > > Just noticed, if our user do not give the hint via ioctl, f2fs can > provider hint to lower layer according to hot/cold separation ability, > it will be okay. But once user give his hint which may be more accurate > than filesystem, hint converted by f2fs may be wrong. > > So what do you think of adding an option to control whether filesystem > can convert hint user given? > I think it is okay for LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME. because they are converted to different hints. >>> >>> What I mean is introducing a mount option, e.g. fs_iohint, >>> a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate file/inode io_hint to low layer. >>> b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore file/inode io_hint, use io_hint which is generated >>> with filesystem's private rule. >>> >> >> Okay, I will implement this option and send this patch again. > > Let's wait for Jaegeuk's comments first? > >> >> Without fs_iohint, Even if data blocks are moved due to GC, >> we should keep user hints. And if user hints are not given, >> any hints are not passed down to block layer, right? > > Hmm.. that will be a problem, IMO, we can store last user's io_hint into inode > layout, so later when we trigger GC, we can use the last io_hint in inode > rather > than giving no hint or fs' hint. > > I think it needs to discuss with original author of IO hint, what is the IO > hint > policy when filesystem move block by itself after inode has been released in > system. > > Thanks, > >> >> Thank you for comments. >> >>> Thanks, >>> file hint segment typeio hint - --- LIFE_SHORT HOT_DATALIFE_MEDIUM LIFE_MEDIUMWARM_DATA LIFE_NONE LIFE_LONG WARM_DATA LIFE_NONE LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA LIFE_EXTREME the problem is that LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG are converted to the same hint, LIFE_NONE. I am not sure that the seperation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is really needed. Because I guess that the difference between them is a little ambigous for users, and if WARM_DATA segment has two different hints, it can makes GC non-efficient. I wonder your thought about this. Thanks. > Thanks, > > -- 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-de...@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >>> >> >> . >> > > > -- > 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-de...@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Hyunchul, On 2017/12/12 10:15, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On 12/11/2017 10:15 PM, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Hyunchul, >> >> On 2017/12/1 16:28, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >>> Hi Chao, >>> >>> On 11/30/2017 04:06 PM, Chao Yu wrote: Hi Hyunchul, On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > From: Hyunchul Lee > > This implements which hint is passed down to block layer > for datas from the specific segment type. > > segment type hints > - > COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE > HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG > HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT Just noticed, if our user do not give the hint via ioctl, f2fs can provider hint to lower layer according to hot/cold separation ability, it will be okay. But once user give his hint which may be more accurate than filesystem, hint converted by f2fs may be wrong. So what do you think of adding an option to control whether filesystem can convert hint user given? >>> >>> I think it is okay for LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME. because they are >>> converted to different hints. >> >> What I mean is introducing a mount option, e.g. fs_iohint, >> a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate file/inode io_hint to low layer. >> b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore file/inode io_hint, use io_hint which is generated >> with filesystem's private rule. >> > > Okay, I will implement this option and send this patch again. Let's wait for Jaegeuk's comments first? > > Without fs_iohint, Even if data blocks are moved due to GC, > we should keep user hints. And if user hints are not given, > any hints are not passed down to block layer, right? Hmm.. that will be a problem, IMO, we can store last user's io_hint into inode layout, so later when we trigger GC, we can use the last io_hint in inode rather than giving no hint or fs' hint. I think it needs to discuss with original author of IO hint, what is the IO hint policy when filesystem move block by itself after inode has been released in system. Thanks, > > Thank you for comments. > >> Thanks, >> >>> >>> file hint segment typeio hint >>> - --- >>> LIFE_SHORT HOT_DATALIFE_MEDIUM >>> LIFE_MEDIUMWARM_DATA LIFE_NONE >>> LIFE_LONG WARM_DATA LIFE_NONE >>> LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA LIFE_EXTREME >>> >>> the problem is that LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG are converted to >>> the same hint, LIFE_NONE. I am not sure that the seperation between >>> LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is really needed. Because I guess that the >>> difference between them is a little ambigous for users, and if WARM_DATA >>> segment has two different hints, it can makes GC non-efficient. >>> >>> I wonder your thought about this. >>> >>> Thanks. >>> Thanks, >>> >>> -- >>> 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-de...@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >>> >> > > . >
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Chao, On 12/11/2017 10:15 PM, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Hyunchul, > > On 2017/12/1 16:28, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >> Hi Chao, >> >> On 11/30/2017 04:06 PM, Chao Yu wrote: >>> Hi Hyunchul, >>> >>> On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote: From: Hyunchul Lee This implements which hint is passed down to block layer for datas from the specific segment type. segment type hints - COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT >>> >>> Just noticed, if our user do not give the hint via ioctl, f2fs can >>> provider hint to lower layer according to hot/cold separation ability, >>> it will be okay. But once user give his hint which may be more accurate >>> than filesystem, hint converted by f2fs may be wrong. >>> >>> So what do you think of adding an option to control whether filesystem >>> can convert hint user given? >>> >> >> I think it is okay for LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME. because they are >> converted to different hints. > > What I mean is introducing a mount option, e.g. fs_iohint, > a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate file/inode io_hint to low layer. > b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore file/inode io_hint, use io_hint which is generated > with filesystem's private rule. > Okay, I will implement this option and send this patch again. Without fs_iohint, Even if data blocks are moved due to GC, we should keep user hints. And if user hints are not given, any hints are not passed down to block layer, right? Thank you for comments. > Thanks, > >> >> file hint segment typeio hint >> - --- >> LIFE_SHORT HOT_DATALIFE_MEDIUM >> LIFE_MEDIUMWARM_DATA LIFE_NONE >> LIFE_LONG WARM_DATA LIFE_NONE >> LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA LIFE_EXTREME >> >> the problem is that LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG are converted to >> the same hint, LIFE_NONE. I am not sure that the seperation between >> LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is really needed. Because I guess that the >> difference between them is a little ambigous for users, and if WARM_DATA >> segment has two different hints, it can makes GC non-efficient. >> >> I wonder your thought about this. >> >> Thanks. >> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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-de...@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >> >
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Hyunchul, On 2017/12/1 16:28, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On 11/30/2017 04:06 PM, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Hyunchul, >> >> On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >>> From: Hyunchul Lee >>> >>> This implements which hint is passed down to block layer >>> for datas from the specific segment type. >>> >>> segment type hints >>> - >>> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME >>> WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE >>> HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG >>> HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM >>> META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT >> >> Just noticed, if our user do not give the hint via ioctl, f2fs can >> provider hint to lower layer according to hot/cold separation ability, >> it will be okay. But once user give his hint which may be more accurate >> than filesystem, hint converted by f2fs may be wrong. >> >> So what do you think of adding an option to control whether filesystem >> can convert hint user given? >> > > I think it is okay for LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME. because they are > converted to different hints. What I mean is introducing a mount option, e.g. fs_iohint, a) w/o fs_iohint, propagate file/inode io_hint to low layer. b) w/ fs_iohint, ignore file/inode io_hint, use io_hint which is generated with filesystem's private rule. Thanks, > > file hint segment typeio hint > - --- > LIFE_SHORT HOT_DATALIFE_MEDIUM > LIFE_MEDIUMWARM_DATA LIFE_NONE > LIFE_LONG WARM_DATA LIFE_NONE > LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA LIFE_EXTREME > > the problem is that LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG are converted to > the same hint, LIFE_NONE. I am not sure that the seperation between > LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is really needed. Because I guess that the > difference between them is a little ambigous for users, and if WARM_DATA > segment has two different hints, it can makes GC non-efficient. > > I wonder your thought about this. > > Thanks. > >> Thanks, >> >> > > -- > 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-de...@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >
Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 12/01/2017 04:28 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 11/30, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
>>> From: Hyunchul Lee
>>>
>>> This implements which hint is passed down to block layer
>>> for datas from the specific segment type.
>>>
>>> segment type hints
>>> -
>>> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
>>> WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE
>>> HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG
>>> HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM
>>> META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT
>>
>> The correspondence looks good to me.
>
> Still, I don't fully get the point. Why do we have to assign WRITE_LIFE_NONE
> to WARM_DATA? Why not using WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET?
>
I think LIFE_NONE and LIFE_NOT_SET are the same. So I chose LIFE_NONE simply.
Thanks.
>>>
>>> Many thanks to Chao Yu and Jaegeuk Kim for comments to
>>> implement this patch.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Hyunchul Lee
>>> ---
>>> fs/f2fs/data.c| 1 +
>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h| 2 ++
>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 29 +
>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 ++
>>> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>> index a7ae418..0919a43 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ int f2fs_submit_page_write(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
>>> }
>>> io->bio = __bio_alloc(sbi, fio->new_blkaddr,
>>> BIO_MAX_PAGES, false);
>>> + io->bio->bi_write_hint = io->write_hint;
>>
>> Need to assign bi_write_hint for IPU path?
>>
>> - rewrite_data_page
>> - f2fs_submit_page_bio
>>
>>> io->fio = *fio;
>>> }
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>> index 7bcd148..be3cb0c 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>> @@ -969,6 +969,7 @@ struct f2fs_bio_info {
>>> struct rw_semaphore io_rwsem; /* blocking op for bio */
>>> spinlock_t io_lock; /* serialize DATA/NODE IOs */
>>> struct list_head io_list; /* track fios */
>>> + enum rw_hint write_hint;
>>
>> Add missing comment?
>>
>>> };
>>>
>>> #define FDEV(i)(sbi->devs[i])
>>> @@ -2674,6 +2675,7 @@ int lookup_journal_in_cursum(struct f2fs_journal
>>> *journal, int type,
>>> int __init create_segment_manager_caches(void);
>>> void destroy_segment_manager_caches(void);
>>> int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint);
>>> +enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp);
>>>
>>> /*
>>> * checkpoint.c
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> index c117e09..0570db7 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> @@ -2446,6 +2446,35 @@ int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint)
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>
>> It will be better to copy commit log here to declare correspondence
>> more clearly.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> +enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp)
>>> +{
>>> + if (page == DATA) {
>>> + switch (temp) {
>>> + case WARM:
>>> + return WRITE_LIFE_NONE;
>>> + case COLD:
>>> + return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
>>> + case HOT:
>>> + return WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM;
>>> + default:
>>> + return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
>>> + }
>>> + } else if (page == NODE) {
>>> + switch (temp) {
>>> + case WARM:
>>> + case HOT:
>>> + return WRITE_LIFE_LONG;
>>> + case COLD:
>>> + return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
>>> + default:
>>> + return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + } else {
>>> + return WRITE_LIFE_SHORT;
>>> + }
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static int __get_segment_type_2(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
>>> {
>>> if (fio->type == DATA)
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>> index a6c5dd4..51c19a0 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>> @@ -2508,6 +2508,8 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,
>>> void *data, int silent)
>>> sbi->write_io[i][j].bio = NULL;
>>> spin_lock_init(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_lock);
>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_list);
>>> + sbi->write_io[i][j].write_hint =
>>> + io_type_to_rw_hint(i, j);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>
Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Chao, On 11/30/2017 04:06 PM, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Hyunchul, > > On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote: >> From: Hyunchul Lee >> >> This implements which hint is passed down to block layer >> for datas from the specific segment type. >> >> segment type hints >> - >> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME >> WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE >> HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG >> HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM >> META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT > > Just noticed, if our user do not give the hint via ioctl, f2fs can > provider hint to lower layer according to hot/cold separation ability, > it will be okay. But once user give his hint which may be more accurate > than filesystem, hint converted by f2fs may be wrong. > > So what do you think of adding an option to control whether filesystem > can convert hint user given? > I think it is okay for LIFE_SHORT and LIFE_EXTREME. because they are converted to different hints. file hint segment typeio hint - --- LIFE_SHORT HOT_DATALIFE_MEDIUM LIFE_MEDIUMWARM_DATA LIFE_NONE LIFE_LONG WARM_DATA LIFE_NONE LIFE_EXTREME COLD_DATA LIFE_EXTREME the problem is that LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG are converted to the same hint, LIFE_NONE. I am not sure that the seperation between LIFE_MEDIUM and LIFE_LONG is really needed. Because I guess that the difference between them is a little ambigous for users, and if WARM_DATA segment has two different hints, it can makes GC non-efficient. I wonder your thought about this. Thanks. > Thanks, > >
Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
On 11/30, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
> > From: Hyunchul Lee
> >
> > This implements which hint is passed down to block layer
> > for datas from the specific segment type.
> >
> > segment type hints
> > -
> > COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
> > WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE
> > HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG
> > HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM
> > META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT
>
> The correspondence looks good to me.
Still, I don't fully get the point. Why do we have to assign WRITE_LIFE_NONE
to WARM_DATA? Why not using WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET?
> >
> > Many thanks to Chao Yu and Jaegeuk Kim for comments to
> > implement this patch.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Hyunchul Lee
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/data.c| 1 +
> > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h| 2 ++
> > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 29 +
> > fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 ++
> > 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > index a7ae418..0919a43 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ int f2fs_submit_page_write(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
> > }
> > io->bio = __bio_alloc(sbi, fio->new_blkaddr,
> > BIO_MAX_PAGES, false);
> > + io->bio->bi_write_hint = io->write_hint;
>
> Need to assign bi_write_hint for IPU path?
>
> - rewrite_data_page
> - f2fs_submit_page_bio
>
> > io->fio = *fio;
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > index 7bcd148..be3cb0c 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > @@ -969,6 +969,7 @@ struct f2fs_bio_info {
> > struct rw_semaphore io_rwsem; /* blocking op for bio */
> > spinlock_t io_lock; /* serialize DATA/NODE IOs */
> > struct list_head io_list; /* track fios */
> > + enum rw_hint write_hint;
>
> Add missing comment?
>
> > };
> >
> > #define FDEV(i)(sbi->devs[i])
> > @@ -2674,6 +2675,7 @@ int lookup_journal_in_cursum(struct f2fs_journal
> > *journal, int type,
> > int __init create_segment_manager_caches(void);
> > void destroy_segment_manager_caches(void);
> > int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint);
> > +enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp);
> >
> > /*
> > * checkpoint.c
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > index c117e09..0570db7 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > @@ -2446,6 +2446,35 @@ int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint)
> > }
> > }
> >
>
> It will be better to copy commit log here to declare correspondence
> more clearly.
>
> Thanks,
>
> > +enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp)
> > +{
> > + if (page == DATA) {
> > + switch (temp) {
> > + case WARM:
> > + return WRITE_LIFE_NONE;
> > + case COLD:
> > + return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
> > + case HOT:
> > + return WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM;
> > + default:
> > + return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
> > + }
> > + } else if (page == NODE) {
> > + switch (temp) {
> > + case WARM:
> > + case HOT:
> > + return WRITE_LIFE_LONG;
> > + case COLD:
> > + return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
> > + default:
> > + return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
> > + }
> > +
> > + } else {
> > + return WRITE_LIFE_SHORT;
> > + }
> > +}
> > +
> > static int __get_segment_type_2(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
> > {
> > if (fio->type == DATA)
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > index a6c5dd4..51c19a0 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> > @@ -2508,6 +2508,8 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb,
> > void *data, int silent)
> > sbi->write_io[i][j].bio = NULL;
> > spin_lock_init(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_lock);
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_list);
> > + sbi->write_io[i][j].write_hint =
> > + io_type_to_rw_hint(i, j);
> > }
> > }
> >
> >
Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
Hi Hyunchul, On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote: > From: Hyunchul Lee > > This implements which hint is passed down to block layer > for datas from the specific segment type. > > segment type hints > - > COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME > WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE > HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG > HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM > META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT Just noticed, if our user do not give the hint via ioctl, f2fs can provider hint to lower layer according to hot/cold separation ability, it will be okay. But once user give his hint which may be more accurate than filesystem, hint converted by f2fs may be wrong. So what do you think of adding an option to control whether filesystem can convert hint user given? Thanks,
Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
On 2017/11/28 8:23, Hyunchul Lee wrote:
> From: Hyunchul Lee
>
> This implements which hint is passed down to block layer
> for datas from the specific segment type.
>
> segment type hints
> -
> COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
> WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE
> HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG
> HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM
> META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT
The correspondence looks good to me.
>
> Many thanks to Chao Yu and Jaegeuk Kim for comments to
> implement this patch.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hyunchul Lee
> ---
> fs/f2fs/data.c| 1 +
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h| 2 ++
> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 29 +
> fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 ++
> 4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> index a7ae418..0919a43 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> @@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ int f2fs_submit_page_write(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
> }
> io->bio = __bio_alloc(sbi, fio->new_blkaddr,
> BIO_MAX_PAGES, false);
> + io->bio->bi_write_hint = io->write_hint;
Need to assign bi_write_hint for IPU path?
- rewrite_data_page
- f2fs_submit_page_bio
> io->fio = *fio;
> }
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index 7bcd148..be3cb0c 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@ -969,6 +969,7 @@ struct f2fs_bio_info {
> struct rw_semaphore io_rwsem; /* blocking op for bio */
> spinlock_t io_lock; /* serialize DATA/NODE IOs */
> struct list_head io_list; /* track fios */
> + enum rw_hint write_hint;
Add missing comment?
> };
>
> #define FDEV(i) (sbi->devs[i])
> @@ -2674,6 +2675,7 @@ int lookup_journal_in_cursum(struct f2fs_journal
> *journal, int type,
> int __init create_segment_manager_caches(void);
> void destroy_segment_manager_caches(void);
> int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint);
> +enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp);
>
> /*
> * checkpoint.c
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index c117e09..0570db7 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -2446,6 +2446,35 @@ int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint)
> }
> }
>
It will be better to copy commit log here to declare correspondence
more clearly.
Thanks,
> +enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp)
> +{
> + if (page == DATA) {
> + switch (temp) {
> + case WARM:
> + return WRITE_LIFE_NONE;
> + case COLD:
> + return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
> + case HOT:
> + return WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM;
> + default:
> + return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
> + }
> + } else if (page == NODE) {
> + switch (temp) {
> + case WARM:
> + case HOT:
> + return WRITE_LIFE_LONG;
> + case COLD:
> + return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
> + default:
> + return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
> + }
> +
> + } else {
> + return WRITE_LIFE_SHORT;
> + }
> +}
> +
> static int __get_segment_type_2(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
> {
> if (fio->type == DATA)
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> index a6c5dd4..51c19a0 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> @@ -2508,6 +2508,8 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
> *data, int silent)
> sbi->write_io[i][j].bio = NULL;
> spin_lock_init(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_lock);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_list);
> + sbi->write_io[i][j].write_hint =
> + io_type_to_rw_hint(i, j);
> }
> }
>
>
[PATCH 1/2] f2fs: pass down write hints to block layer for bufferd write
From: Hyunchul Lee
This implements which hint is passed down to block layer
for datas from the specific segment type.
segment type hints
-
COLD_NODE & COLD_DATAWRITE_LIFE_EXTREME
WARM_DATAWRITE_LIFE_NONE
HOT_NODE & WARM_NODE WRITE_LIFE_LONG
HOT_DATA WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM
META_DATAWRITE_LIFE_SHORT
Many thanks to Chao Yu and Jaegeuk Kim for comments to
implement this patch.
Signed-off-by: Hyunchul Lee
---
fs/f2fs/data.c| 1 +
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h| 2 ++
fs/f2fs/segment.c | 29 +
fs/f2fs/super.c | 2 ++
4 files changed, 34 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
index a7ae418..0919a43 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
@@ -437,6 +437,7 @@ int f2fs_submit_page_write(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
}
io->bio = __bio_alloc(sbi, fio->new_blkaddr,
BIO_MAX_PAGES, false);
+ io->bio->bi_write_hint = io->write_hint;
io->fio = *fio;
}
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
index 7bcd148..be3cb0c 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
@@ -969,6 +969,7 @@ struct f2fs_bio_info {
struct rw_semaphore io_rwsem; /* blocking op for bio */
spinlock_t io_lock; /* serialize DATA/NODE IOs */
struct list_head io_list; /* track fios */
+ enum rw_hint write_hint;
};
#define FDEV(i)(sbi->devs[i])
@@ -2674,6 +2675,7 @@ int lookup_journal_in_cursum(struct f2fs_journal
*journal, int type,
int __init create_segment_manager_caches(void);
void destroy_segment_manager_caches(void);
int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint);
+enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp);
/*
* checkpoint.c
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index c117e09..0570db7 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -2446,6 +2446,35 @@ int rw_hint_to_seg_type(enum rw_hint hint)
}
}
+enum rw_hint io_type_to_rw_hint(enum page_type page, enum temp_type temp)
+{
+ if (page == DATA) {
+ switch (temp) {
+ case WARM:
+ return WRITE_LIFE_NONE;
+ case COLD:
+ return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
+ case HOT:
+ return WRITE_LIFE_MEDIUM;
+ default:
+ return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
+ }
+ } else if (page == NODE) {
+ switch (temp) {
+ case WARM:
+ case HOT:
+ return WRITE_LIFE_LONG;
+ case COLD:
+ return WRITE_LIFE_EXTREME;
+ default:
+ return WRITE_LIFE_NOT_SET;
+ }
+
+ } else {
+ return WRITE_LIFE_SHORT;
+ }
+}
+
static int __get_segment_type_2(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
{
if (fio->type == DATA)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index a6c5dd4..51c19a0 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -2508,6 +2508,8 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void
*data, int silent)
sbi->write_io[i][j].bio = NULL;
spin_lock_init(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_lock);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&sbi->write_io[i][j].io_list);
+ sbi->write_io[i][j].write_hint =
+ io_type_to_rw_hint(i, j);
}
}
--
1.9.1
