2017-08-26 12:49:50

by Yunlong Song

Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

1. write file A with 5 blocks to current empty active segment
2. remove file A
3. write checkpoint
4. write file B with 507 blocks to the same active segment

If file B is alive all the time, the blocks used by file A will never be
discarded. So current active segment should also be treated as a candidate
for small discards.

Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>
---
fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 8375257..a2e7c8f 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -1339,7 +1339,9 @@ static bool add_discard_addrs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc,
return false;

if (!force) {
- if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) || !se->valid_blocks ||
+ if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) ||
+ (!se->valid_blocks &&
+ !IS_CURSEG(sbi, cpc->trim_start)) ||
SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->nr_discards >=
SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->max_discards)
return false;
--
1.8.5.2

2017-08-28 10:00:20

by Chao Yu

Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

On 2017/8/26 20:49, Yunlong Song wrote:
> 1. write file A with 5 blocks to current empty active segment
> 2. remove file A
> 3. write checkpoint
> 4. write file B with 507 blocks to the same active segment
>
> If file B is alive all the time, the blocks used by file A will never be
> discarded. So current active segment should also be treated as a candidate
> for small discards.

I don't think that would be a big issue, since there will not be any freezing
log headers, once log header moves, later invalid blocks could be discarded.

Thanks,

>
> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index 8375257..a2e7c8f 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -1339,7 +1339,9 @@ static bool add_discard_addrs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc,
> return false;
>
> if (!force) {
> - if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) || !se->valid_blocks ||
> + if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) ||
> + (!se->valid_blocks &&
> + !IS_CURSEG(sbi, cpc->trim_start)) ||
> SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->nr_discards >=
> SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->max_discards)
> return false;
>

2017-08-28 13:22:17

by Yunlong Song

Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

How? Can the invalid blocks of file A be discarded, if file B is alive
all the time and fggc_threshold is 507 ?

On 2017/8/28 17:59, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/8/26 20:49, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> 1. write file A with 5 blocks to current empty active segment
>> 2. remove file A
>> 3. write checkpoint
>> 4. write file B with 507 blocks to the same active segment
>>
>> If file B is alive all the time, the blocks used by file A will never be
>> discarded. So current active segment should also be treated as a candidate
>> for small discards.
> I don't think that would be a big issue, since there will not be any freezing
> log headers, once log header moves, later invalid blocks could be discarded.
>
> Thanks,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> index 8375257..a2e7c8f 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> @@ -1339,7 +1339,9 @@ static bool add_discard_addrs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc,
>> return false;
>>
>> if (!force) {
>> - if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) || !se->valid_blocks ||
>> + if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) ||
>> + (!se->valid_blocks &&
>> + !IS_CURSEG(sbi, cpc->trim_start)) ||
>> SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->nr_discards >=
>> SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->max_discards)
>> return false;
>>
>
> .
>

--
Thanks,
Yunlong Song

2017-08-29 10:07:12

by Chao Yu

Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: discard small invalid blocks in current active segments

On 2017/8/28 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote:
> How? Can the invalid blocks of file A be discarded, if file B is alive
> all the time and fggc_threshold is 507 ?

As I traced, with small discard, we scan discard candidates from all dirty
segments which also include current segment, so seems we don't need to wait log
header moving on.

Thanks,

>
> On 2017/8/28 17:59, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/8/26 20:49, Yunlong Song wrote:
>>> 1. write file A with 5 blocks to current empty active segment
>>> 2. remove file A
>>> 3. write checkpoint
>>> 4. write file B with 507 blocks to the same active segment
>>>
>>> If file B is alive all the time, the blocks used by file A will never be
>>> discarded. So current active segment should also be treated as a candidate
>>> for small discards.
>> I don't think that would be a big issue, since there will not be any freezing
>> log headers, once log header moves, later invalid blocks could be discarded.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> index 8375257..a2e7c8f 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>> @@ -1339,7 +1339,9 @@ static bool add_discard_addrs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc,
>>> return false;
>>>
>>> if (!force) {
>>> - if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) || !se->valid_blocks ||
>>> + if (!test_opt(sbi, DISCARD) ||
>>> + (!se->valid_blocks &&
>>> + !IS_CURSEG(sbi, cpc->trim_start)) ||
>>> SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->nr_discards >=
>>> SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info->max_discards)
>>> return false;
>>>
>>
>> .
>>
>