Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | From | Chao Yu <> | Subject | [PATCH] f2fs: fix to correct no_fggc_candidate | Date | Tue, 17 Oct 2017 23:01:39 +0800 |
| |
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
There may be extreme case as below:
For one section contains one segment, and there are total 100 segments with 10% over-privision ratio in f2fs partition, fggc_threshold will be rounded down to 460 instead of 460.8 as below caclulation:
sbi->fggc_threshold = div_u64((u64)(main_count - ovp_count) * BLKS_PER_SEC(sbi), (main_count - resv_count));
If section usage is as:
As valid block number in all sections is large than fggc_threshold, so none of them will be chosen as candidate due to incorrect fggc_threshold.
Let's just soften the term of choosing foreground GC candidates.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> --- fs/f2fs/segment.h | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h index 5a1f7b9c8a72..8d93652d5b6a 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h @@ -731,7 +731,7 @@ static inline block_t sum_blk_addr(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int base, int type) static inline bool no_fggc_candidate(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int secno) { - if (get_valid_blocks(sbi, GET_SEG_FROM_SEC(sbi, secno), true) >= + if (get_valid_blocks(sbi, GET_SEG_FROM_SEC(sbi, secno), true) > sbi->fggc_threshold) return true; return false; -- 2.14.1.145.gb3622a4ee
| |