Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1226959
| From | Chao Yu <chao2.yu@samsung.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time |
| Date | 2015-09-17 14:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <q9Gu6-3rD-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | <q91Kj-2gb-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <q91Kj-2gb-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
Hi Jaegeuk,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:56 AM
> To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org;
> linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
> Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time
>
> As comment says, we don't need to call f2fs_lock_op in write_inode to prevent
> from producing dirty node pages all the time.
> That happens only when there is not enough free sections and we can avoid that
> by calling balance_fs in prior to that.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/inode.c | 10 +++-------
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> index 35aae65..0fc4d02 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> @@ -296,16 +296,12 @@ int f2fs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc)
> return 0;
>
> /*
> - * We need to lock here to prevent from producing dirty node pages
> + * We need to balance fs here to prevent from producing dirty node pages
> * during the urgent cleaning time when runing out of free sections.
> */
> - f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
> - update_inode_page(inode);
> - f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
> -
> - if (wbc)
> - f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
f2fs_balance_fs was moved here intentionally by Jin Xu in commit 92c4342fb72a
("f2fs: avoid writing inode redundantly when creating a file") to avoid
redundantly inode page submitting, I was confused since I didn't know all
history here. So, should we change the position of f2fs_balance_fs?
Thanks,
> + f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
>
> + update_inode_page(inode);
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.1.1
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> - 2015-09-15 19:00 +0200
RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time Chao Yu <chao2.yu@samsung.com> - 2015-09-17 14:30 +0200
Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> - 2015-09-17 20:10 +0200
csiph-web