Hi Jaegeuk, On 2016/5/30 10:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Chao, > > On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 01:19:11PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >> From: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> >> >> If we fail to move data page during foreground GC, we should give another >> chance to writeback that page which was set dirty previously by writer. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> >> --- >> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 5 ++++- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> index 38d56f6..ee213a8 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> @@ -653,12 +653,15 @@ static void move_data_page(struct inode *inode, >> block_t bidx, int gc_type) >> .page = page, >> .encrypted_page = NULL, >> }; >> + bool is_dirty = PageDirty(page); >> + >> set_page_dirty(page); >> f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback(page, DATA, true); >> if (clear_page_dirty_for_io(page)) >> inode_dec_dirty_pages(inode); >> set_cold_data(page); >> - do_write_data_page(&fio); >> + if (do_write_data_page(&fio) && is_dirty) >> + set_page_dirty(page); > > If this page is truncated with -ENOENT, we don't need to set it dirty again.
Agree > I expect that, if we get an error here, do_garbage_collect() would retry FG_GC IIRC, you have reworked the FG_GC flows changed from an infinite loop to trying do the movement just one time. Here, I think if there are just few of blocks are failed to be moved, we can give one more time for retrying. How do you think? > again. > > Thanks, > >> clear_cold_data(page); >> } >> out: >> -- >> 2.7.2 > . >
