On 2018/12/19 6:43, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/18, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2018/12/14 13:01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> Sometimes, I could observe # of issuing_discard to be 1 which blocks 
>>> background
>>> jobs due to is_idle()=false.
>>> The only way to get out of it was to trigger gc_urgent. This patch avoids 
>>> that
>>> by checking any candidates as done in the list.
>>
>> Well, as below code, once we issued discard commands, we will wait all
>> queued discard end their IO, so do you know what flow can cause such
>> condition...?
> 
> It's very subtle, and I suspect somehow race condition not from here.
> 
>>
>>              issued = __issue_discard_cmd(sbi, &dpolicy);
>>              if (issued > 0) {
>>                      __wait_all_discard_cmd(sbi, &dpolicy);
>>
>> Or, I doubt that 'issued' statistical info could be wrong.
> 
> No, it simply came back to 0 with this patch. So, something is pending
> in the queue even if it is done.

__submit_discard_cmd()
{
....
        dc->len = 0;   <---- reset discard length here

        while (total_len && *issued < dpolicy->max_requests && !err) {
                struct bio *bio = NULL;
                unsigned long flags;
                bool last = true;

                if (len > max_discard_blocks) {
                        len = max_discard_blocks;  <---- will truncate len to 
max_discard_blocks
                        last = false;
                }

                (*issued)++;
                if (*issued == dpolicy->max_requests)
                        last = true;

                dc->len += len;      <----- will update len into dc->len
...
}

__wait_discard_cmd_range()
{
...
                if (dc->len < dpolicy->granularity)
                        continue;
So we can only remove discard entry which size is not smaller than
dpolicy->granularity, if max_discard_blocks is smaller than granularity,
after splitting discard in __submit_discard_cmd(), we may left small-sized
entry there.

...
}

Could you check that whether the left discard was skipped being removed due
to above reason?

Thanks

> 
> Thanks,
> 
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org>
>>> ---
>>>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++++
>>>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> index 49ea9009ab5a..acbbc924e518 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> @@ -1651,6 +1651,10 @@ static int issue_discard_thread(void *data)
>>>             if (dcc->discard_wake)
>>>                     dcc->discard_wake = 0;
>>>  
>>> +           /* clean up pending candidates before going to sleep */
>>> +           if (atomic_read(&dcc->queued_discard))
>>> +                   __wait_all_discard_cmd(sbi, NULL);
>>> +
>>>             if (try_to_freeze())
>>>                     continue;
>>>             if (f2fs_readonly(sbi->sb))
>>>
> 
> .
> 

Reply via email to