On 12/08, Yonggil Song wrote:
> Overview
> ========
>
> This patch introduces a new way to preference data sections when selecting
> GC victims. Migration of data blocks causes invalidation of node blocks.
> Therefore, in situations where GC is frequent, selecting data blocks as
> victims can reduce unnecessary block migration by invalidating node blocks.
> For exceptional situations where free sections are insufficient, node blocks
> are selected as victims instead of data blocks to get extra free sections.
>
> Problem
> =======
>
> If the total amount of nodes is larger than the size of one section, nodes
> occupy multiple sections, and node victims are often selected because the
> gc cost is lowered by data block migration in GC. Since moving the data
> section causes frequent node victim selection, victim threshing occurs in
> the node section. This results in an increase in WAF.
>
> Experiment
> ==========
>
> Test environment is as follows.
>
> System info
> - 3.6GHz, 16 core CPU
> - 36GiB Memory
> Device info
> - a conventional null_blk with 228MiB
> - a sequential null_blk with 4068 zones of 8MiB
> Format
> - mkfs.f2fs <conv null_blk> -c <seq null_blk> -m -Z 8 -o 3.89
> Mount
> - mount <conv null_blk> <mount point>
> Fio script
> - fio --rw=randwrite --bs=4k --ba=4k --filesize=31187m --norandommap
> --overwrite=1 --name=job1 --filename=./mnt/sustain --io_size=128g
> WAF calculation
> - (IOs on conv. null_blk + IOs on seq. null_blk) / random write IOs
>
> Conclusion
> ==========
>
> This experiment showed that the WAF was reduced by 29% (18.75 -> 13.3) when
> the data section was selected first when selecting GC victims. This was
> achieved by reducing the migration of the node blocks by 69.4%
> (253,131,743 blks -> 77,463,278 blks). It is possible to achieve low WAF
> performance with the GC victim selection method in environments where the
> section size is relatively small.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yonggil Song <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 98 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 2 files changed, 77 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index 9043cedfa12b..578d57f6022f 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@ -1649,6 +1649,7 @@ struct f2fs_sb_info {
> struct f2fs_mount_info mount_opt; /* mount options */
>
> /* for cleaning operations */
> + bool need_node_clean; /* need to clean dirty nodes */
> struct f2fs_rwsem gc_lock; /*
> * semaphore for GC, avoid
> * race between GC and GC or CP
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> index f550cdeaa663..682dcf0de59e 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> @@ -368,6 +368,14 @@ static inline unsigned int get_gc_cost(struct
> f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> if (p->alloc_mode == SSR)
> return get_seg_entry(sbi, segno)->ckpt_valid_blocks;
>
> + /*
> + * If we don't need to clean dirty nodes,
> + * we just skip node victims.
> + */
> + if (IS_NODESEG(get_seg_entry(sbi, segno)->type) &&
> + !sbi->need_node_clean)
> + return get_max_cost(sbi, p);
How about differentiating the gc cost between data vs. node by adding some
weights? By default, data is preferred, while node is better in the worst case?
> +
> /* alloc_mode == LFS */
> if (p->gc_mode == GC_GREEDY)
> return get_valid_blocks(sbi, segno, true);
> @@ -557,6 +565,14 @@ static void atgc_lookup_victim(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> if (ve->mtime >= max_mtime || ve->mtime < min_mtime)
> goto skip;
>
> + /*
> + * If we don't need to clean dirty nodes,
> + * we just skip node victims.
> + */
> + if (IS_NODESEG(get_seg_entry(sbi, ve->segno)->type) &&
> + !sbi->need_node_clean)
> + goto skip;
> +
> /* age = 10000 * x% * 60 */
> age = div64_u64(accu * (max_mtime - ve->mtime), total_time) *
> age_weight;
> @@ -913,7 +929,21 @@ int f2fs_get_victim(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned
> int *result,
> goto retry;
> }
>
> +
> if (p.min_segno != NULL_SEGNO) {
> + if (sbi->need_node_clean &&
> + IS_DATASEG(get_seg_entry(sbi, p.min_segno)->type)) {
> + /*
> + * we need to clean node sections.
> + * but, data victim cost is the lowest.
> + * if free sections are enough, stop cleaning node
> victim.
> + * if not, it goes on by GCing data victims.
> + */
> + if (has_enough_free_secs(sbi, prefree_segments(sbi),
> 0)) {
> + p.min_segno = NULL_SEGNO;
> + goto out;
> + }
> + }
> got_it:
> *result = (p.min_segno / p.ofs_unit) * p.ofs_unit;
> got_result:
> @@ -1830,8 +1860,27 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct
> f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> goto stop;
> }
>
> + __get_secs_required(sbi, NULL, &upper_secs, NULL);
> +
> + /*
> + * Write checkpoint to reclaim prefree segments.
> + * We need more three extra sections for writer's data/node/dentry.
> + */
> + if (free_sections(sbi) <= upper_secs + NR_GC_CHECKPOINT_SECS) {
> + sbi->need_node_clean = true;
> +
> + if (prefree_segments(sbi)) {
> + stat_inc_cp_call_count(sbi, TOTAL_CALL);
> + ret = f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
> + if (ret)
> + goto stop;
> + /* Reset due to checkpoint */
> + sec_freed = 0;
> + }
> + }
> +
> /* Let's run FG_GC, if we don't have enough space. */
> - if (has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, 0, 0)) {
> + if (gc_type == BG_GC && has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, 0, 0)) {
> gc_type = FG_GC;
>
> /*
> @@ -1858,10 +1907,22 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct
> f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> ret = __get_victim(sbi, &segno, gc_type);
> if (ret) {
> /* allow to search victim from sections has pinned data */
> - if (ret == -ENODATA && gc_type == FG_GC &&
> - f2fs_pinned_section_exists(DIRTY_I(sbi))) {
> - f2fs_unpin_all_sections(sbi, false);
> - goto retry;
> + if (ret == -ENODATA && gc_type == FG_GC) {
> + if (f2fs_pinned_section_exists(DIRTY_I(sbi))) {
> + f2fs_unpin_all_sections(sbi, false);
> + goto retry;
> + }
> + /*
> + * If we have no more data victims, let's start to
> + * clean dirty nodes.
> + */
> + if (!sbi->need_node_clean) {
> + sbi->need_node_clean = true;
> + goto retry;
> + }
> + /* node cleaning is over */
> + else if (sbi->need_node_clean)
> + goto stop;
> }
> goto stop;
> }
> @@ -1882,7 +1943,13 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct
> f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> if (!gc_control->no_bg_gc &&
> total_sec_freed < gc_control->nr_free_secs)
> goto go_gc_more;
> - goto stop;
> + /*
> + * If the need_node_clean flag is set
> + * even though there are enough free
> + * sections, node cleaning will continue.
> + */
> + if (!sbi->need_node_clean)
> + goto stop;
> }
> if (sbi->skipped_gc_rwsem)
> skipped_round++;
> @@ -1897,21 +1964,6 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct
> f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> goto stop;
> }
>
> - __get_secs_required(sbi, NULL, &upper_secs, NULL);
> -
> - /*
> - * Write checkpoint to reclaim prefree segments.
> - * We need more three extra sections for writer's data/node/dentry.
> - */
> - if (free_sections(sbi) <= upper_secs + NR_GC_CHECKPOINT_SECS &&
> - prefree_segments(sbi)) {
> - stat_inc_cp_call_count(sbi, TOTAL_CALL);
> - ret = f2fs_write_checkpoint(sbi, &cpc);
> - if (ret)
> - goto stop;
> - /* Reset due to checkpoint */
> - sec_freed = 0;
> - }
> go_gc_more:
> segno = NULL_SEGNO;
> goto gc_more;
> @@ -1920,8 +1972,10 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct
> f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
> SIT_I(sbi)->last_victim[ALLOC_NEXT] = 0;
> SIT_I(sbi)->last_victim[FLUSH_DEVICE] = gc_control->victim_segno;
>
> - if (gc_type == FG_GC)
> + if (gc_type == FG_GC) {
> f2fs_unpin_all_sections(sbi, true);
> + sbi->need_node_clean = false;
> + }
>
> trace_f2fs_gc_end(sbi->sb, ret, total_freed, total_sec_freed,
> get_pages(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES),
> --
> 2.34.1
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
