Hi all, I think this patch should be wrong, since during fstrim, we should not issue discard for prefree segment redundantly.
So, Jaegeuk, could you please drop this patch in your branch? Sorry for the noise. Thanks, On 2016/6/30 16:42, Chao Yu wrote: > During tiggering fstrim, in case of issuing discard for prefree segments, > we miss acclumulating trimmed block number which will be return to user. > Fix it. > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]> > --- > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c > index 6d16ecf..5dc14d6 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c > @@ -732,15 +732,20 @@ void clear_prefree_segments(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > struct cp_control *cpc) > if (!test_opt(sbi, LFS) || sbi->segs_per_sec == 1) { > f2fs_issue_discard(sbi, START_BLOCK(sbi, start), > (end - start) << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg); > + cpc->trimmed += > + (end - start) << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg; > continue; > } > next: > secno = GET_SECNO(sbi, start); > start_segno = secno * sbi->segs_per_sec; > if (!IS_CURSEC(sbi, secno) && > - !get_valid_blocks(sbi, start, sbi->segs_per_sec)) > + !get_valid_blocks(sbi, start, sbi->segs_per_sec)) { > f2fs_issue_discard(sbi, START_BLOCK(sbi, start_segno), > sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg); > + cpc->trimmed += > + sbi->segs_per_sec << sbi->log_blocks_per_seg; > + } > > start = start_segno + sbi->segs_per_sec; > if (start < end) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
