On 2018/7/10 4:43, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> 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..
CP_NAT_BITS_FLAG modification should be happened in mount or checkpoint, so
there should be no contention.
Anyway, keep it here is okay to me.
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
Thanks,
>
>>
>> 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
