On 04/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/4/13 9:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 04/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/4/10 12:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 04/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2018/4/10 2:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 04/08, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2018/4/5 11:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 04/04, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> This patch enlarges block plug coverage in __issue_discard_cmd, in
> >>>>>>>> order to collect more pending bios before issuing them, to avoid
> >>>>>>>> being disturbed by previous discard I/O in IO aware discard mode.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hmm, then we need to wait for huge discard IO for over 10 secs, which
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We found that total discard latency is rely on total discard number we
> >>>>>> issued
> >>>>>> last time instead of range or length discard covered. IMO, if we don't
> >>>>>> change
> >>>>>> .max_requests value, we will not suffer longer latency.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> will affect following read/write IOs accordingly. In order to avoid
> >>>>>>> that,
> >>>>>>> we actually need to limit the discard size.
> >>>>
> >>>> Do you mean limit discard count or discard length?
> >>>
> >>> Both of them.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you are worry about I/O interference in between discard and rw, I
> >>>>>> suggest to
> >>>>>> decrease .max_requests value.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you mean? This will produce more pending requests in the queue?
> >>>>
> >>>> I mean after applying this patch, we can queue more discard IOs in plug
> >>>> inside
> >>>> task, otherwise, previous issued discard in block layer can make
> >>>> is_idle() be false,
> >>>> then it can stop IO awared user to issue pending discard command.
> >>>
> >>> Then, unplug will issue lots of discard commands, which affects the
> >>> following rw
> >>> latencies. My preference would be issuing discard commands one by one as
> >>> much as
> >>> possible.
> >>
> >> Hmm.. for you concern, we can turn down IO priority of discard from
> >> background?
> >
> > That makes much more sense to me. :P
>
> Then, this patch which enlarge plug coverage will not still a problem, right?
> ;)
This is different one.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
> >>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 7 +++++--
> >>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>>>>>>> index 8f0b5ba46315..4287e208c040 100644
> >>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1208,10 +1208,12 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct
> >>>>>>>> f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>>>>>>> pend_list = &dcc->pend_list[i];
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mutex_lock(&dcc->cmd_lock);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> + blk_start_plug(&plug);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> if (list_empty(pend_list))
> >>>>>>>> goto next;
> >>>>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, !__check_rb_tree_consistence(sbi,
> >>>>>>>> &dcc->root));
> >>>>>>>> - blk_start_plug(&plug);
> >>>>>>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(dc, tmp, pend_list, list) {
> >>>>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, dc->state != D_PREP);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> @@ -1227,8 +1229,9 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct
> >>>>>>>> f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >>>>>>>> if (++iter >= dpolicy->max_requests)
> >>>>>>>> break;
> >>>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>> - blk_finish_plug(&plug);
> >>>>>>>> next:
> >>>>>>>> + blk_finish_plug(&plug);
> >>>>>>>> +
> >>>>>>>> mutex_unlock(&dcc->cmd_lock);
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> if (iter >= dpolicy->max_requests)
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> 2.15.0.55.gc2ece9dc4de6
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >
> > .
> >
