From: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Cc: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix long latency due to discard during umount
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2020 06:56:04 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200313012604.GI20234@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200312170242.GA185506@google.com>
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:02:42AM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/12, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> > F2FS already has a default timeout of 5 secs for discards that
> > can be issued during umount, but it can take more than the 5 sec
> > timeout if the underlying UFS device queue is already full and there
> > are no more available free tags to be used. In that case, submit_bio()
> > will wait for the already queued discard requests to complete to get
> > a free tag, which can potentially take way more than 5 sec.
> >
> > Fix this by submitting the discard requests with REQ_NOWAIT
> > flags during umount. This will return -EAGAIN for UFS queue/tag full
> > scenario without waiting in the context of submit_bio(). The FS can
> > then handle these requests by retrying again within the stipulated
> > discard timeout period to avoid long latencies.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 14 +++++++++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > index fb3e531..a06bbac 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > @@ -1124,10 +1124,13 @@ static int __submit_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > struct discard_cmd_control *dcc = SM_I(sbi)->dcc_info;
> > struct list_head *wait_list = (dpolicy->type == DPOLICY_FSTRIM) ?
> > &(dcc->fstrim_list) : &(dcc->wait_list);
> > - int flag = dpolicy->sync ? REQ_SYNC : 0;
> > + int flag;
> > block_t lstart, start, len, total_len;
> > int err = 0;
> >
> > + flag = dpolicy->sync ? REQ_SYNC : 0;
> > + flag |= dpolicy->type == DPOLICY_UMOUNT ? REQ_NOWAIT : 0;
> > +
> > if (dc->state != D_PREP)
> > return 0;
> >
> > @@ -1203,6 +1206,11 @@ static int __submit_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > bio->bi_end_io = f2fs_submit_discard_endio;
> > bio->bi_opf |= flag;
> > submit_bio(bio);
> > + if ((flag & REQ_NOWAIT) && (dc->error == -EAGAIN)) {
> > + dc->state = D_PREP;
> > + err = dc->error;
> > + break;
> > + }
> >
> > atomic_inc(&dcc->issued_discard);
> >
> > @@ -1510,6 +1518,10 @@ static int __issue_discard_cmd(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > }
> >
> > __submit_discard_cmd(sbi, dpolicy, dc, &issued);
> > + if (dc->error == -EAGAIN) {
> > + congestion_wait(BLK_RW_ASYNC, HZ/50);
>
> --> need to be DEFAULT_IO_TIMEOUT
Yes, i will update it.
>
> > + __relocate_discard_cmd(dcc, dc);
>
> It seems we need to submit bio first, and then move dc to wait_list, if there's
> no error, in __submit_discard_cmd().
Yes, that is not changed and it still happens for the failed request
that is re-queued here too when it gets submitted again later.
I am requeuing the discard request failed with -EAGAIN error back to
dcc->pend_list[] from wait_list. It will call submit_bio() for this request
and also move to wait_list when it calls __submit_discard_cmd() again next
time. Please let me know if I am missing anything?
Thanks,
>
> > + }
> >
> > if (issued >= dpolicy->max_requests)
> > break;
> > --
> > Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
> > Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
--
--
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-03-13 1:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-03-12 11:14 Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-12 17:02 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-03-13 1:26 ` Sahitya Tummala [this message]
2020-03-13 1:45 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-03-13 5:12 ` Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-13 15:38 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-03-13 2:20 ` Chao Yu
2020-03-13 3:39 ` Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-13 6:30 ` Chao Yu
2020-03-13 11:08 ` Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-16 0:52 ` Chao Yu
2020-03-16 3:52 ` Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-18 4:44 Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-24 9:08 ` Chao Yu
2020-03-26 9:00 ` Chao Yu
2020-03-26 13:37 ` Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-27 1:51 ` Chao Yu
2020-03-27 3:05 ` Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-30 6:53 ` Sahitya Tummala
2020-03-30 8:38 ` Chao Yu
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20200313012604.GI20234@codeaurora.org \
--to=stummala@codeaurora.org \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Powered by JetHome