On 12/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2022/12/13 6:45, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 12/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2022/12/12 22:14, Yangtao Li wrote:
> > > > Hi Chao,
> > > >
> > > > > The difference here is, if we use f2fs_realtime_discard_enable() in
> > > > > f2fs_put_super(), we will only write checkpoint w/ CP_TRIMMED flag
> > > > > when discard option is enable and device supports discard.
> > > >
> > > > > But actually, if discard option is disabled, we still needs to give
> > > > > put_super() a chance to write checkpoint w/ CP_TRIMMED flag.
> > > >
> > > > Why do we still have to set the CP_TRIMMED flag when the discard opt is
> > > > not set.
> > > > Did I miss something?
> > >
> > > Hi Yangtao,
> > >
> > > I guess it's up to scenario. e.g.
> > >
> > > mount w/ nodiscard and use FITRIM to trigger in-batch discard,
> > > if we set CP_TRIMMED flag during umount, next time, after mount
> > > w/ discard, it doesn't to issue redundant discard.
> >
> > If fitrim was called with a range, we can get a wrong FI_TRIMMED flag.
> > Isn't it
>
> We can set CP_TRIMMED flag only if fitrim was called on full range w/ 4k
> granularity,
> due to it will check sbi->discard_blks variable to make sure there is no
> range we
> haven't trimmed.
>
> > better to get a full discard range after remount even though some are
> > redundant?
>
> If nodiscard is set, and sbi->discard_blks becomes zero, it says a full range
> fitrim
> was been triggered.
That gives another assumption, and I prefer to make it simple.
>
> So, previous check condition has no problem, right?
>
> if ((f2fs_hw_support_discard(sbi) || f2fs_hw_should_discard(sbi)) &&
> !sbi->discard_blks && !dropped) {
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thx,
> > > > Yangtao
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
