I agree with you, it looks a bit more intuitive that way. I'll submit a new version of the patch as soon as I can. Thanks,
On Sun, Feb 4, 2024 at 10:24 AM Chao Yu <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2024/2/4 10:18, Wenjie Qi wrote: > > Hi Chao, > > > > It seems to me that when mounting multiple zoned devices, > > if their max_open_zones are all 0, then sbi->max_open_zones is 0. > > This suggests that all of the mounted devices can open an unlimited > > number of zones, > > and that we don't need to compare sbi->max_open_zones with > > F2FS_OPTION( sbi).active_logs. > > Yes, but I'm curious about how this case (sbi->max_open_zones is zero) > works w/ following patch, do we need to initialized sbi->max_open_zones > w/ UINT_MAX to indicate the unlimited open zone status of device if > all zoned devices' max_open_zones is zero? > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Chao Yu <[email protected]> 于2024年2月4日周日 09:47写道： > >> > >> On 2024/2/3 23:24, Wenjie Qi wrote: > >>> If the max open zones of zoned devices are less than > >>> the active logs of F2FS, the device may error due to > >>> insufficient zone resources when multiple active logs are > >>> being written at the same time. If this value is 0, > >>> there is no limit. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Wenjie Qi <[email protected]> > >>> --- > >>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 + > >>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 21 +++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>> index 543898482f8b..161107f2d3bd 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>> @@ -1558,6 +1558,7 @@ struct f2fs_sb_info { > >>> > >>> #ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED > >>> unsigned int blocks_per_blkz; /* F2FS blocks per zone */ > >>> + unsigned int max_open_zones; /* max open zone resources > >>> of the zoned device */ > >>> #endif > >>> > >>> /* for node-related operations */ > >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>> index 1b718bebfaa1..45e82d6016fc 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>> @@ -2388,6 +2388,16 @@ static int f2fs_remount(struct super_block *sb, > >>> int *flags, char *data) > >>> if (err) > >>> goto restore_opts; > >>> > >>> +#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_ZONED > >>> + if (sbi->max_open_zones && sbi->max_open_zones < > >>> F2FS_OPTION(sbi).active_logs) { > >>> + f2fs_err(sbi, > >>> + "zoned: max open zones %u is too small, need at > >>> least %u open zones", > >>> + sbi->max_open_zones, > >>> F2FS_OPTION(sbi).active_logs); > >>> + err = -EINVAL; > >>> + goto restore_opts; > >>> + } > >>> +#endif > >>> + > >>> /* flush outstanding errors before changing fs state */ > >>> flush_work(&sbi->s_error_work); > >>> > >>> @@ -3930,11 +3940,22 @@ static int init_blkz_info(struct f2fs_sb_info > >>> *sbi, int devi) > >>> sector_t nr_sectors = bdev_nr_sectors(bdev); > >>> struct f2fs_report_zones_args rep_zone_arg; > >>> u64 zone_sectors; > >>> + unsigned int max_open_zones; > >>> int ret; > >>> > >>> if (!f2fs_sb_has_blkzoned(sbi)) > >>> return 0; > >>> > >>> + max_open_zones = bdev_max_open_zones(bdev); > >> > >> Wenjie, > >> > >> max_open_zones can always be zero? then sbi->max_open_zones will be zero, > >> is this a valid case? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> + if (max_open_zones && (max_open_zones < sbi->max_open_zones || > >>> !sbi->max_open_zones)) > >>> + sbi->max_open_zones = max_open_zones; > >>> + if (sbi->max_open_zones && sbi->max_open_zones < > >>> F2FS_OPTION(sbi).active_logs) { > >>> + f2fs_err(sbi, > >>> + "zoned: max open zones %u is too small, need at > >>> least %u open zones", > >>> + sbi->max_open_zones, > >>> F2FS_OPTION(sbi).active_logs); > >>> + return -EINVAL; > >>> + } > >>> + > >>> zone_sectors = bdev_zone_sectors(bdev); > >>> if (!is_power_of_2(zone_sectors)) { > >>> f2fs_err(sbi, "F2FS does not support non power of 2 zone > >>> sizes\n"); _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
