Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 13 May 2022 10:58:48 -0700 | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] f2fs: separate NOCoW and pinfile semantics |
| |
On 05/13, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2022/5/13 5:57, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 05/12, Chao Yu wrote: > > > Pinning a file is heavy, because skipping pinned files make GC > > > running with heavy load or no effect. > > > > > > So that this patch proposes to separate nocow and pinfile semantics: > > > - NOCoW flag can only be set on regular file. > > > - NOCoW file will only trigger IPU at common writeback/flush. > > > - NOCow file will do OPU during GC. > > > > > > This flag can satisfying the demand of: > > > 1) avoiding fragment of file's physical block > > > 2) userspace doesn't want to pin file's physical address > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao.yu@oppo.com> > > > --- > > > fs/f2fs/data.c | 3 ++- > > > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 + > > > fs/f2fs/file.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- > > > 3 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c > > > index 54a7a8ad994d..c8eab78f7d89 100644 > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c > > > @@ -2495,7 +2495,8 @@ bool f2fs_should_update_inplace(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_io_info *fio) > > > if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_ALIGNED_WRITE)) > > > return false; > > > - if (f2fs_is_pinned_file(inode)) > > > + if (f2fs_is_pinned_file(inode) || > > > + F2FS_I(inode)->i_flags & F2FS_NOCOW_FL) > > > return true; > > > /* if this is cold file, we should overwrite to avoid fragmentation */ > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > > index 492af5b96de1..e91ece55f5e8 100644 > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > > > @@ -2916,6 +2916,7 @@ static inline void f2fs_change_bit(unsigned int nr, char *addr) > > > #define F2FS_NOCOMP_FL 0x00000400 /* Don't compress */ > > > #define F2FS_INDEX_FL 0x00001000 /* hash-indexed directory */ > > > #define F2FS_DIRSYNC_FL 0x00010000 /* dirsync behaviour (directories only) */ > > > +#define F2FS_NOCOW_FL 0x00800000 /* Do not cow file */ > > > #define F2FS_PROJINHERIT_FL 0x20000000 /* Create with parents projid */ > > > #define F2FS_CASEFOLD_FL 0x40000000 /* Casefolded file */ > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c > > > index 09287876dbb7..7f92a3a157f7 100644 > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c > > > @@ -1851,6 +1851,20 @@ static int f2fs_setflags_common(struct inode *inode, u32 iflags, u32 mask) > > > if (IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) > > > return -EPERM; > > > + if ((iflags ^ masked_flags) & F2FS_NOCOW_FL) { > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + if (!S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (f2fs_should_update_outplace(inode, NULL)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + if (f2fs_is_pinned_file(inode)) > > > + return -EINVAL; > > > + ret = f2fs_convert_inline_inode(inode); > > > + if (ret) > > > + return ret; > > > + } > > > + > > > if ((iflags ^ masked_flags) & F2FS_CASEFOLD_FL) { > > > if (!f2fs_sb_has_casefold(F2FS_I_SB(inode))) > > > return -EOPNOTSUPP; > > > @@ -1926,6 +1940,7 @@ static const struct { > > > { F2FS_NOCOMP_FL, FS_NOCOMP_FL }, > > > { F2FS_INDEX_FL, FS_INDEX_FL }, > > > { F2FS_DIRSYNC_FL, FS_DIRSYNC_FL }, > > > + { F2FS_NOCOW_FL, FS_NOCOW_FL }, > > > { F2FS_PROJINHERIT_FL, FS_PROJINHERIT_FL }, > > > { F2FS_CASEFOLD_FL, FS_CASEFOLD_FL }, > > > }; > > > @@ -1957,7 +1972,8 @@ static const struct { > > > FS_NOCOMP_FL | \ > > > FS_DIRSYNC_FL | \ > > > FS_PROJINHERIT_FL | \ > > > - FS_CASEFOLD_FL) > > > + FS_CASEFOLD_FL | \ > > > + FS_NOCOW_FL) > > > /* Convert f2fs on-disk i_flags to FS_IOC_{GET,SET}FLAGS flags */ > > > static inline u32 f2fs_iflags_to_fsflags(u32 iflags) > > > @@ -3081,6 +3097,13 @@ static int f2fs_ioc_set_pin_file(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg) > > > inode_lock(inode); > > > + if (F2FS_I(inode)->i_flags & F2FS_NOCOW_FL) { > > > + f2fs_info(F2FS_I_SB(inode), "inode (%lu) is already NOCOW one", > > > + inode->i_ino); > > > + ret = -EINVAL; > > > > Why rejecting this? We can pin the file to get 2MB-aligned allocation on the > > NOCOW file. > > I try to separate these two flag completely, but, seems it can't, because after > commit 5d539245cb18 ("f2fs: export FS_NOCOW_FL flag to user"), these two flags > have already been twined closely.... > > @@ -1651,6 +1651,8 @@ static int f2fs_ioc_getflags(struct file *filp, unsigned long arg) > flags |= F2FS_ENCRYPT_FL; > if (f2fs_has_inline_data(inode) || f2fs_has_inline_dentry(inode)) > flags |= F2FS_INLINE_DATA_FL; > + if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_PIN_FILE)) > + flags |= F2FS_NOCOW_FL; > > How about: > > f2fs_ioc_set_pin_file/f2fs_fileattr_set logic: > pinfile nocow > set set pinfile | nocow set nocow > clear clear pinfile | nocow clear nocow > > Behaviors: > w/ pinfile, w/ nocow: use pinfile semantics > w/ pinfile, w/o nocow: use pinfile semantics > w/o pinfile, w/ nocow: use nocow semantics > w/o pinfile, w/o nocow: no pinfile or nocow semantics
This looks good to me. Thanks,
> > Thanks, > > > > > > + goto out; > > > + } > > > + > > > if (!pin) { > > > clear_inode_flag(inode, FI_PIN_FILE); > > > f2fs_i_gc_failures_write(inode, 0); > > > -- > > > 2.25.1
| |