On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/7 5:09, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Let's flush journal nat entries for speed up in the next run.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/node.c | 7 +++++++
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > index 29237aeca041..0f076fb0d828 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > @@ -2613,6 +2613,13 @@ void f2fs_flush_nat_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info
> > *sbi, struct cp_control *cpc)
> > nid_t set_idx = 0;
> > LIST_HEAD(sets);
> >
> > + /* during unmount, let's flush nat_bits before checking dirty_nat_cnt */
> > + if (enabled_nat_bits(sbi, cpc)) {
> > + down_write(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> > + remove_nats_in_journal(sbi);
> > + up_write(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> > + }
>
> The case will cover that nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt is zero and there is cached nats
> in
> journal?
Yes.
>
> So enabled_nat_bits() below should be removed?
It's out of lock, nm_i->nat_tree_lock, logically..
>
> if (enabled_nat_bits(sbi, cpc) ||
> !__has_cursum_space(journal, nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt, NAT_JOURNAL))
> remove_nats_in_journal(sbi);
>
> Thanks,
>
> > +
> > if (!nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt)
> > return;
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
