Hi, On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 22:24:28 +0100, David Arendt wrote: > Hi, > > Well I didn't know that a few days can pass as fast :-) > > I have attached the patch to this mail. > > Until now the patch has only been shortly tested on a loop device, so it > might contain bugs and destroy your data. Thank you for posting the patch! The patch looks rougly ok to me. I'll comment on it later. At first glance, I felt it would be nice if cleanerd->c_running is nicely used instead of adding a local variable "sleeping". Thanks, Ryusuke Konishi > If you decide to apply it, please change the default values to the ones > you find the most appropriate. > > Thanks in advance, > Bye, > David Arendt > > On 03/15/10 16:58, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > > Hi, > > On Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:03:45 +0100, David Arendt wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am posting this again to the correct mailing list as I cc'ed it to the > >> old inactive one. > >> > >> Maybe I am understanding something wrong, but if I would use the count > >> of reclaimed segments, how could I determine if one cleaning pass has > >> finished as I don't know in advance how many segments could be reclaimed ? > >> > > For example, how about this? > > > > nmax = (number of segments) - (number of clean segments) > > nblk = (max_clean_segments - (number of clean segments)) * > > (number of blocks per segment) > > > > * If (number of clean segments) < min_clean_segments, then start reclamation > > * Try to reclaim nmax segments (at a maximum). > > * When the cleaner found and freed nblk blocks during the > > reclamation, then end one cleaning pass. > > > > > >> Another approach would be not basing cleaning on a whole cleaning pass > >> but instead creating these addtional configfile options: > >> > >> # start cleaning if less than 100 free segments > >> min_clean_segments 100 > >> > >> # stop cleaning if more than 200 free segments > >> max_clean_segments 200 > >> > >> # check free space once an hour > >> segment_check_interval 3600 > >> > >> Basically in this example if less than 800mb are free cleaner is run > >> until 1600mb are free. If min_clean_segments is 0, the cleaner would do > >> normal operation. > >> > > The first two parameters look Ok. > > (I've already referred to these in the above example.) > > > > We may well be able to make segment_check_interval more frequent. > > or do you have something in mind? > > > > Do you mean interval of cleaning passes ? > > > > > >> For this solution only changes in configfile loading and > >> nilfs_cleanerd_clean_loop would be necessary which would lower the risk > >> of introducing new bugs. > >> > >> If this solution is ok for you, I will implement it this way and send > >> you the patch in a few days. Also tell me if the names I have choosen > >> for the options are ok for you or if you would prefer other ones. > >> > > The option names look fine to me. > > Or should we use percentage for them? > > (number of segments is device dependent) > > > > Is there anything else that isn't clear? > > > > > >> Thanks in advance > >> Bye, > >> David Arendt > >> > > Thanks, > > Ryusuke Konishi > > > > > >> On 03/14/10 15:28, Ryusuke Konishi wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 14:00:19 +0100, admin@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi, > >>>> > >>>> I will try to implement this myself then. Concerning the > >>>> nilfs_cleanerd_select segments function I was unclear in my post. In > >>>> fact I did not mean the return value but the first element from the > >>>> segnums array. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Ok. So you thought of determining termination of one cleaning pass by > >>> the segment number stored preliminarily. > >>> > >>> Why not just use count of processed (i.e. reclaimed) segments? > >>> > >>> Note that it's not guranteed that segments are selected in the order > >>> of segment number though this premise looks almost right. > >>> > >>> It depends on the behavior of segment allocator and the current > >>> "Select-oldest" algorithm used behind > >>> nilfs_cleanerd_select_segments(). Nilfs log writer occasionally > >>> behaves differently and disturbs this order. > >>> > >>> I think you can ignore the exceptional behavior of the segment > >>> allocator, and rotate target segments with skipping free or mostly > >>> in-use ones. In that case, nilfs_cleanerd_select_segments() should be > >>> modified to select segments in the order of segment number. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Ryusuke Konishi > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in > >> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
