lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [RFC PATCH] f2fs: restructure f2fs page.private layout
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 06:09:08PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Restruct f2fs page private layout for below reasons:
>
> There are some cases that f2fs wants to set a flag in a page to
> indicate a specified status of page:
> a) page is in transaction list for atomic write
> b) page contains dummy data for aligned write
> c) page is migrating for GC
> d) page contains inline data for inline inode flush
> e) page is verified in merkle tree for fsverity

hm, why do you need to record that? I would have thought that if a file
is marked as being protected by the merkle tree then any pages read in
would be !uptodate until the merkle tree verification had happened.

> f) page is dirty and has filesystem/inode reference count for writeback
> g) page is temporary and has decompress io context reference for compression
>
> There are existed places in page structure we can use to store
> f2fs private status/data:
> - page.flags: PG_checked, PG_private
> - page.private
>
> However it was a mess when we using them, which may cause potential
> confliction:
> page.private PG_private PG_checked
> a) -1 set
> b) -2
> c), d), e) set
> f) 0 set
> g) pointer set
>
> The other problem is page.flags has no free slot, if we can avoid set
> zero to page.private and set PG_private flag, then we use non-zero value
> to indicate PG_private status, so that we may have chance to reclaim
> PG_private slot for other usage. [1]
>
> So in this patch let's restructure f2fs' page.private as below:
>
> Layout A: lowest bit should be 1
> | bit0 = 1 | bit1 | bit2 | ... | bit MAX | private data .... |
> bit 0 PAGE_PRIVATE_NOT_POINTER
> bit 1 PAGE_PRIVATE_ATOMIC_WRITE
> bit 2 PAGE_PRIVATE_DUMMY_WRITE
> bit 3 PAGE_PRIVATE_ONGOING_MIGRATION
> bit 4 PAGE_PRIVATE_INLINE_INODE
> bit 5 PAGE_PRIVATE_REF_RESOURCE
> bit 6- f2fs private data
>
> Layout B: lowest bit should be 0
> page.private is a wrapped pointer.
>
> After the change:
> page.private PG_private PG_checked
> a) 11 set
> b) 101
> c) 1001
> d) 10001
> e) set
> f) 100001 set
> g) pointer set

Mmm ... this isn't enough to let us remove PG_private. We'd need PG_private
to be set for b,c,d as well.

> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> index 817d0bcb5c67..e393a67a023c 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c
> @@ -444,7 +444,11 @@ static int f2fs_set_meta_page_dirty(struct page *page)
> if (!PageDirty(page)) {
> __set_page_dirty_nobuffers(page);
> inc_page_count(F2FS_P_SB(page), F2FS_DIRTY_META);
> - f2fs_set_page_private(page, 0);
> + set_page_private_reference(page);
> + if (!PagePrivate(page)) {
> + SetPagePrivate(page);
> + get_page(page);
> + }

I'm not a big fan of this pattern (which seems to be repeated quite often)
I think it should be buried within set_page_private_reference(). Also,
are the states abcdf all mutually exclusive, or can a page be in states
(eg) b and d at the same time?

> - if (IS_DUMMY_WRITTEN_PAGE(page)) {
> - set_page_private(page, (unsigned long)NULL);
> + if (page_private_dummy(page)) {
> + clear_page_private_dummy(page);
> ClearPagePrivate(page);

I think the ClearPagePrivate should be buried in the page_private_dummy()
macro too ... and shouldn't there be a put_page() for this too?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-26 17:41    [W:0.129 / U:0.728 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site