Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1478304

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check free_sections for defragmentation

From Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Newsgroups linux.kernel
Subject Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check free_sections for defragmentation
Date 2016-09-07 15:40 +0200
Message-ID <seLf3-jD-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References <scHph-70l-67@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


Hi Jaegeuk,

On 2016/9/2 4:46, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Fix wrong condition check for defragmentation of a file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/file.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> index 37c24be..a8aa6fd 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> @@ -2037,7 +2037,7 @@ static int f2fs_defragment_range(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>  	 * avoid defragment running in SSR mode when free section are allocated
>  	 * intensively
>  	 */
> -	if (has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, sec_num)) {
> +	if (free_sections(sbi) <= sec_num) {

Why don't we check dirty dentry/node/imeta blocks here? they will be generated
at any time after f2fs_balance_fs. So, isn't original condition more strict than
new one?

Thanks,

>  		err = -EAGAIN;
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> 

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

[PATCH] f2fs: check free_sections for defragmentation Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> - 2016-09-01 23:10 +0200
  Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check free_sections for defragmentation Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org> - 2016-09-07 15:40 +0200
    Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check free_sections for defragmentation Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> - 2016-09-08 02:20 +0200
      Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check free_sections for defragmentation Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org> - 2016-09-08 18:10 +0200

csiph-web