Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753278AbbGABZy (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:25:54 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:58496 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752628AbbGABZj (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Jun 2015 21:25:39 -0400 Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 18:25:36 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Cc: Changman Lee , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: refactor shrink flow for extent cache Message-ID: <20150701012536.GD1496@jaegeuk-mac02.mot.com> References: <00ea01d0b321$854293d0$8fc7bb70$@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <00ea01d0b321$854293d0$8fc7bb70$@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1502 Lines: 35 Hi Chao, On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 06:42:09PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > For now, in extent cache, we have a global lru list which links all extent > node in the cache, and the list is protected by a global spinlock. > > If we want to shrink extent cache, we will: > 1. delete all target extent node from global lru list under spinlock; > 2. traverse all per-inode extent tree in global radix tree; > 2.a. traverse all extent node in per-inode extent tree, try to free extent > node if it is not in global lru list already. > > This method is inefficient when there is huge number of inode extent tree in > global extent tree. > > In this patch we introduce a new method for extent cache shrinking: > When we attach a new extent node, we record extent tree pointer in extent node. > In shrink flow, we can try to find and lock extent tree of inode directly by > this backward pointer, and then detach the extent node from extent tree. > > This can help to shrink extent cache more efficiently. Yes, but as we discussed before, this way will consume 4 bytes per each extent_node. Can it be acceptable? Instead, IMO, we need to focus on how to increase its hit ratio first. Actually, I wrote a patch for that. Could you check that first? Thanks, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/