+5
−3
+2
−0
+20
−2
+3
−2
+120
−24
Loading
Gitlab 现已全面支持 git over ssh 与 git over https。通过 HTTPS 访问请配置带有 read_repository / write_repository 权限的 Personal access token。通过 SSH 端口访问请使用 22 端口或 13389 端口。如果使用CAS注册了账户但不知道密码,可以自行至设置中更改;如有其他问题,请发邮件至 service@cra.moe 寻求协助。
f2fs recovery flow is relying on dnode block link list, it means fsynced
file recovery depends on previous dnode's persistence in the list, so
during fsync() we should wait on all regular inode's dnode writebacked
before issuing flush.
By this way, we can avoid dnode block list being broken by out-of-order
IO submission due to IO scheduler or driver.
Sheng Yong helps to do the test with this patch:
Target:/data (f2fs, -)
64MB / 32768KB / 4KB / 8
1 / PERSIST / Index
Base:
SEQ-RD(MB/s) SEQ-WR(MB/s) RND-RD(IOPS) RND-WR(IOPS) Insert(TPS) Update(TPS) Delete(TPS)
1 867.82 204.15 41440.03 41370.54 680.8 1025.94 1031.08
2 871.87 205.87 41370.3 40275.2 791.14 1065.84 1101.7
3 866.52 205.69 41795.67 40596.16 694.69 1037.16 1031.48
Avg 868.7366667 205.2366667 41535.33333 40747.3 722.21 1042.98 1054.753333
After:
SEQ-RD(MB/s) SEQ-WR(MB/s) RND-RD(IOPS) RND-WR(IOPS) Insert(TPS) Update(TPS) Delete(TPS)
1 798.81 202.5 41143 40613.87 602.71 838.08 913.83
2 805.79 206.47 40297.2 41291.46 604.44 840.75 924.27
3 814.83 206.17 41209.57 40453.62 602.85 834.66 927.91
Avg 806.4766667 205.0466667 40883.25667 40786.31667 603.3333333 837.83 922.0033333
Patched/Original:
0.928332713 0.999074239 0.984300676 1.000957528 0.835398753 0.803303994 0.874141189
It looks like atomic write will suffer performance regression.
I suspect that the criminal is that we forcing to wait all dnode being in
storage cache before we issue PREFLUSH+FUA.
BTW, will commit ("f2fs: don't need to wait for node writes for atomic write")
cause the problem: we will lose data of last transaction after SPO, even if
atomic write return no error:
- atomic_open();
- write() P1, P2, P3;
- atomic_commit();
- writeback data: P1, P2, P3;
- writeback node: N1, N2, N3; <--- If N1, N2 is not writebacked, N3 with fsync_mark is
writebacked, In SPOR, we won't find N3 since node chain is broken, turns out that losing
last transaction.
- preflush + fua;
- power-cut
If we don't wait dnode writeback for atomic_write:
SEQ-RD(MB/s) SEQ-WR(MB/s) RND-RD(IOPS) RND-WR(IOPS) Insert(TPS) Update(TPS) Delete(TPS)
1 779.91 206.03 41621.5 40333.16 716.9 1038.21 1034.85
2 848.51 204.35 40082.44 39486.17 791.83 1119.96 1083.77
3 772.12 206.27 41335.25 41599.65 723.29 1055.07 971.92
Avg 800.18 205.55 41013.06333 40472.99333 744.0066667 1071.08 1030.18
Patched/Original:
0.92108464 1.001526693 0.987425886 0.993268102 1.030180511 1.026942031 0.976702294
SQLite's performance recovers.
Jaegeuk:
"Practically, I don't see db corruption becase of this. We can excuse to lose
the last transaction."
Finally, we decide to keep original implementation of atomic write interface
sematics that we don't wait all dnode writeback before preflush+fua submission.
Signed-off-by:
Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by:
Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
CRA Git | Maintained and supported by SUSTech CRA and CCSE