On 11/20, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/11/18 14:46, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2021/11/18 0:56, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > On 11/09, niuzhigu...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > From: Zhiguo Niu <zhiguo....@unisoc.com>
> > > >
> > > > There could be a scenario as following:
> > > > The inodeA and inodeB are in b_io queue of writeback
> > > > inodeA : f2fs's node inode
> > > > inodeB : a dir inode with only one dirty pages, and the node page
> > > > of inodeB cached into inodeA
> > > >
> > > > writeback:
> > > >
> > > > wb_workfn
> > > > wb_writeback
> > > > blk_start_plug
> > > > loop {
> > > > queue_io
> > > > progress=__writeback_inodes_wb
> > > > __writeback_single_inode
> > > > do_writepages
> > > > f2fs_write_data_pages
> > > > wbc->pages_skipped +=get_dirty_pages
> > > > inode->i_state &= ~dirty
> > > > wrote++
> > > > requeue_inode
> > > > }
> > > > blk_finish_plug
> > > >
> > > > checkpoint:
> > > >
> > > > f2fs_write_checkpoint
> > > > f2fs_sync_dirty_inodes
> > > > filemap_fdatawrite
> > > > do_writepages
> > > > f2fs_write_data_pages
> > > > f2fs_write_single_data_page
> > > > f2fs_do_write_data_page
> > > > set_page_writeback
> > > > f2fs_outplace_write_data
> > > > f2fs_update_data_blkaddr
> > > > f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback
> > > > inode_dec_dirty_pages
> > > >
> > > > 1. Writeback thread flush inodeA, and push it's bio request in task's
> > > > plug;
> > > > 2. Checkpoint thread writes inodeB's dirty page, and then wait its node
> > > > page writeback cached into inodeA which is in writeback task's
> > > > plug
> > > > 3. Writeback thread flush inodeB and skip writing the dirty page as
> > > > wb_sync_req[DATA] > 0.
> > > > 4. As none of the inodeB's page is marked as PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY,
> > > > writeback
> > > > thread clear inodeB's dirty state.
> > > > 5. Then inodeB is moved from b_io to b_dirty because of pages_skipped > > > > > 0
> > > > as checkpoint thread is stuck before dec dirty_pages.
> > > >
> > > > This patch collect correct pages_skipped according to the tag state in
> > > > page tree of inode
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Zhiguo Niu <zhiguo....@unisoc.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jing Xia <jing....@unisoc.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 +++-
> > > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > index f4fd6c246c9a..e98628e3868c 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > > > @@ -3237,7 +3237,9 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct
> > > > address_space *mapping,
> > > > return ret;
> > > > skip_write:
> > > > - wbc->pages_skipped += get_dirty_pages(inode);
> > > > + wbc->pages_skipped +=
> > > > + mapping_tagged(inode->i_mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY) ?
> > >
> > > Is there any race condition to get 0, if there's any dirty page? IOWs, it
> >
> > Quoted from Jing Xia's explanation:
> >
> > [T:writeback] [T:checkpoint]
>
> My bad, [1] should be here:
>
> bio contains NodeA was plugged in writeback threads
>
> Thanks,
>
> > - do_writepages -- sync write inodeB,
> > inc wb_sync_req[DATA]
> > - f2fs_write_data_pages
> > - f2fs_write_single_data_page --
> > write last dirty page
> > - f2fs_do_write_data_page
> > - set_page_writeback -- clear page
> > dirty flag and
> > PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY tag in radix
> > tree
> > - f2fs_outplace_write_data
> > - f2fs_update_data_blkaddr
> > - f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback --
> > wait NodeA to writeback here
> > - inode_dec_dirty_pages
>
> > bio contains NodeA was plugged in writeback threads
>
> [1]
>
> Thanks,
>
> > - writeback_sb_inodes
> > - writeback_single_inode
> > - do_writepages
> > - f2fs_write_data_pages -- skip writepages due to wb_sync_req[DATA]
> > - wbc->pages_skipped += get_dirty_pages() -- PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY is
> > not set but get_dirty_pages() returns one
> > - requeue_inode -- requeue inode to wb->b_dirty queue due to
> > non-zero.pages_skipped
So, my question was why this is the problem?
> >
> > > seems the current condition is just requeuing the inode as dirty, but next
> > > flushing time will remove it from dirty list. Is this giving too much
> > > overheads?
> >
> > I prefer to let writeback thread call blk_flush_plug() after skipping
> > writepages() due to wb_sync_req[DATA/NODE] check condition, thoughts?
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > index 9f754aaef558..b6e1ed73f8f5 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > @@ -3087,6 +3087,8 @@ static int f2fs_write_cache_pages(struct
> > address_space *mapping,
> > /* give a priority to WB_SYNC threads */
> > if (atomic_read(&sbi->wb_sync_req[DATA]) &&
> > wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
> > + if (current->plug)
> > + blk_flush_plug(current->plug, false);
> > done = 1;
> > break;
> > }
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > index 556fcd8457f3..dd9a817d8dab 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > @@ -1946,6 +1946,8 @@ int f2fs_sync_node_pages(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > if (atomic_read(&sbi->wb_sync_req[NODE]) &&
> > wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
> > done = 1;
> > + if (current->plug)
> > + blk_flush_plug(current->plug, false);
> > break;
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > >
> > > > + get_dirty_pages(inode) : 0;
> > > > trace_f2fs_writepages(mapping->host, wbc, DATA);
> > > > return 0;
> > > > }
> > > > --
> > > > 2.28.0
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> >
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
