[PATCH v2] f2fs: shrink spinlock coverage
In f2fs_try_to_free_nids(), .nid_list_lock spinlock critical region will
increase as expected shrink number increase, to avoid spining other CPUs
for long time, we change to release nid caches with small batch each time
under .nid_list_lock coverage.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
---
v2:
- shrink free nid caches in batch under spinlock coverage.
fs/f2fs/node.c | 25 +++--
fs/f2fs/node.h | 3 +++
2 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
index 4da0d8713df5..1db8cabf727e 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
@@ -2488,7 +2488,6 @@ void f2fs_alloc_nid_failed(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
nid_t nid)
int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink)
{
struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i = NM_I(sbi);
- struct free_nid *i, *next;
int nr = nr_shrink;
if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
@@ -2497,17 +2496,23 @@ int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int
nr_shrink)
if (!mutex_trylock(_i->build_lock))
return 0;
- spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
- list_for_each_entry_safe(i, next, _i->free_nid_list, list) {
- if (nr_shrink <= 0 ||
- nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
- break;
+ while (nr_shrink && nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] > MAX_FREE_NIDS) {
+ struct free_nid *i, *next;
+ unsigned int batch = SHRINK_NID_BATCH_SIZE;
- __remove_free_nid(sbi, i, FREE_NID);
- kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i);
- nr_shrink--;
+ spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(i, next, _i->free_nid_list, list) {
+ if (!nr_shrink || !batch ||
+ nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
+ break;
+ __remove_free_nid(sbi, i, FREE_NID);
+ kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i);
+ nr_shrink--;
+ batch--;
+ }
+ spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
}
- spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
+
mutex_unlock(_i->build_lock);
return nr - nr_shrink;
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.h b/fs/f2fs/node.h
index e05af5df5648..33d677f83569 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/node.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/node.h
@@ -15,6 +15,9 @@
#define FREE_NID_PAGES 8
#define MAX_FREE_NIDS (NAT_ENTRY_PER_BLOCK * FREE_NID_PAGES)
+/* size of free nid batch when shrinking */
+#define SHRINK_NID_BATCH_SIZE 8
+
#define DEF_RA_NID_PAGES 0 /* # of nid pages to be readaheaded */
/* maximum readahead size for node during getting data blocks */
--
2.18.0.rc1
Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: shrink spinlock coverage
On 05/07, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/5/6 23:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 05/06, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> In f2fs_try_to_free_nids(), .nid_list_lock spinlock critical region will
> >> increase as expected shrink number increase, to avoid spining other CPUs
> >> for long time, it's better to implement like extent cache and nats
> >> shrinker.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
> >> ---
> >> v2:
> >> - fix unlock wrong spinlock.
> >> fs/f2fs/node.c | 15 +++
> >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> >> index 4da0d8713df5..ad0b14f4dab8 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> >> @@ -2488,7 +2488,6 @@ void f2fs_alloc_nid_failed(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> >> nid_t nid)
> >> int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink)
> >> {
> >>struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i = NM_I(sbi);
> >> - struct free_nid *i, *next;
> >>int nr = nr_shrink;
> >>
> >>if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> >> @@ -2498,14 +2497,22 @@ int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info
> >> *sbi, int nr_shrink)
> >>return 0;
> >>
> >>spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
> >> - list_for_each_entry_safe(i, next, _i->free_nid_list, list) {
> >> - if (nr_shrink <= 0 ||
> >> - nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> >> + while (nr_shrink) {
> >> + struct free_nid *i;
> >> +
> >> + if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> >>break;
> >>
> >> + i = list_first_entry(_i->free_nid_list,
> >> + struct free_nid, list);
> >> + list_del(>list);
> >> + spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
> >> +
> >>__remove_free_nid(sbi, i, FREE_NID);
> >
> > __remove_free_nid() will do list_del again. btw, how about just splitting
> > out
>
> Oh, my bad.
>
> How about moving __remove_free_nid into .nid_list_lock coverage?
>
> > given nr_shrink into multiple trials?
>
> Like this?
Yes.
>
> while (shrink) {
> batch = DEFAULT_BATCH_NUMBER; // 16
> spinlock();
> list_for_each_entry_safe() {
> if (!shrink || !batch)
> break;
> remove_item_from_list;
> shrink--;
> batch--;
> }
> spin_unlock();
> }
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i);
> >>nr_shrink--;
> >> +
> >> + spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
> >>}
> >>spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
> >>mutex_unlock(_i->build_lock);
> >> --
> >> 2.18.0.rc1
> > .
> >
Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: shrink spinlock coverage
On 2020/5/6 23:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 05/06, Chao Yu wrote:
>> In f2fs_try_to_free_nids(), .nid_list_lock spinlock critical region will
>> increase as expected shrink number increase, to avoid spining other CPUs
>> for long time, it's better to implement like extent cache and nats
>> shrinker.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
>> ---
>> v2:
>> - fix unlock wrong spinlock.
>> fs/f2fs/node.c | 15 +++
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
>> index 4da0d8713df5..ad0b14f4dab8 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
>> @@ -2488,7 +2488,6 @@ void f2fs_alloc_nid_failed(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> nid_t nid)
>> int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink)
>> {
>> struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i = NM_I(sbi);
>> -struct free_nid *i, *next;
>> int nr = nr_shrink;
>>
>> if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
>> @@ -2498,14 +2497,22 @@ int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>> int nr_shrink)
>> return 0;
>>
>> spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
>> -list_for_each_entry_safe(i, next, _i->free_nid_list, list) {
>> -if (nr_shrink <= 0 ||
>> -nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
>> +while (nr_shrink) {
>> +struct free_nid *i;
>> +
>> +if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
>> break;
>>
>> +i = list_first_entry(_i->free_nid_list,
>> +struct free_nid, list);
>> +list_del(>list);
>> +spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
>> +
>> __remove_free_nid(sbi, i, FREE_NID);
>
> __remove_free_nid() will do list_del again. btw, how about just splitting out
Oh, my bad.
How about moving __remove_free_nid into .nid_list_lock coverage?
> given nr_shrink into multiple trials?
Like this?
while (shrink) {
batch = DEFAULT_BATCH_NUMBER; // 16
spinlock();
list_for_each_entry_safe() {
if (!shrink || !batch)
break;
remove_item_from_list;
shrink--;
batch--;
}
spin_unlock();
}
Thanks,
>
>> kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i);
>> nr_shrink--;
>> +
>> +spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
>> }
>> spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
>> mutex_unlock(_i->build_lock);
>> --
>> 2.18.0.rc1
> .
>
Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: shrink spinlock coverage
On 05/06, Chao Yu wrote:
> In f2fs_try_to_free_nids(), .nid_list_lock spinlock critical region will
> increase as expected shrink number increase, to avoid spining other CPUs
> for long time, it's better to implement like extent cache and nats
> shrinker.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
> ---
> v2:
> - fix unlock wrong spinlock.
> fs/f2fs/node.c | 15 +++
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> index 4da0d8713df5..ad0b14f4dab8 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> @@ -2488,7 +2488,6 @@ void f2fs_alloc_nid_failed(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> nid_t nid)
> int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink)
> {
> struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i = NM_I(sbi);
> - struct free_nid *i, *next;
> int nr = nr_shrink;
>
> if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> @@ -2498,14 +2497,22 @@ int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> int nr_shrink)
> return 0;
>
> spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
> - list_for_each_entry_safe(i, next, _i->free_nid_list, list) {
> - if (nr_shrink <= 0 ||
> - nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> + while (nr_shrink) {
> + struct free_nid *i;
> +
> + if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> break;
>
> + i = list_first_entry(_i->free_nid_list,
> + struct free_nid, list);
> + list_del(>list);
> + spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
> +
> __remove_free_nid(sbi, i, FREE_NID);
__remove_free_nid() will do list_del again. btw, how about just splitting out
given nr_shrink into multiple trials?
> kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i);
> nr_shrink--;
> +
> + spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
> mutex_unlock(_i->build_lock);
> --
> 2.18.0.rc1
[PATCH v2] f2fs: shrink spinlock coverage
In f2fs_try_to_free_nids(), .nid_list_lock spinlock critical region will
increase as expected shrink number increase, to avoid spining other CPUs
for long time, it's better to implement like extent cache and nats
shrinker.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
---
v2:
- fix unlock wrong spinlock.
fs/f2fs/node.c | 15 +++
1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
index 4da0d8713df5..ad0b14f4dab8 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
@@ -2488,7 +2488,6 @@ void f2fs_alloc_nid_failed(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
nid_t nid)
int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink)
{
struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i = NM_I(sbi);
- struct free_nid *i, *next;
int nr = nr_shrink;
if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
@@ -2498,14 +2497,22 @@ int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int
nr_shrink)
return 0;
spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
- list_for_each_entry_safe(i, next, _i->free_nid_list, list) {
- if (nr_shrink <= 0 ||
- nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
+ while (nr_shrink) {
+ struct free_nid *i;
+
+ if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS)
break;
+ i = list_first_entry(_i->free_nid_list,
+ struct free_nid, list);
+ list_del(>list);
+ spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
+
__remove_free_nid(sbi, i, FREE_NID);
kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i);
nr_shrink--;
+
+ spin_lock(_i->nid_list_lock);
}
spin_unlock(_i->nid_list_lock);
mutex_unlock(_i->build_lock);
--
2.18.0.rc1
