Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 9 Aug 2018 18:46:14 -0700 | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Subject | Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: avoid fi->i_gc_rwsem[WRITE] lock in f2fs_gc |
| |
On 08/10, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/8/10 3:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > Yup, how about this? > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > > index d816c328f02b..cb510fb36523 100644 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > > @@ -1052,6 +1052,7 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool sync, > > .iroot = RADIX_TREE_INIT(gc_list.iroot, GFP_NOFS), > > }; > > unsigned long long last_skipped = sbi->skipped_atomic_files[FG_GC]; > > + unsigned long long first_skipped; > > unsigned int skipped_round = 0, round = 0; > > > > trace_f2fs_gc_begin(sbi->sb, sync, background, > > @@ -1064,8 +1065,10 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool sync, > > prefree_segments(sbi)); > > > > cpc.reason = __get_cp_reason(sbi); > > - sbi->skipped_gc_rwsem = 0; > > gc_more: > > + sbi->skipped_gc_rwsem = 0; > > + first_skipped = last_skipped; > > + > > if (unlikely(!(sbi->sb->s_flags & SB_ACTIVE))) { > > ret = -EINVAL; > > goto stop; > > @@ -1126,8 +1129,8 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool sync, > > goto gc_more; > > } > > > > - if (sbi->skipped_atomic_files[FG_GC] == last_skipped && > > - sbi->skipped_atomic_files[FG_GC] > > > + if (first_skipped < last_skipped && > > + (last_skipped - first_skipped) > > > IMO, it would be better to judge the condition with skipped number in all round > of FGGC instead of last round, since number in last round may not very accurate.
Yup, moved before gc_more.
> > Thoughts? > > Thanks, > > > sbi->skipped_gc_rwsem) { > > f2fs_drop_inmem_pages_all(sbi, true); > > segno = NULL_SEGNO; > > > > . > >
| |