On 05/06, Chao Yu wrote: > In f2fs_try_to_free_nids(), .nid_list_lock spinlock critical region will > increase as expected shrink number increase, to avoid spining other CPUs > for long time, it's better to implement like extent cache and nats > shrinker. > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> > --- > v2: > - fix unlock wrong spinlock. > fs/f2fs/node.c | 15 +++++++++++---- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c > index 4da0d8713df5..ad0b14f4dab8 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c > @@ -2488,7 +2488,6 @@ void f2fs_alloc_nid_failed(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > nid_t nid) > int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink) > { > struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i = NM_I(sbi); > - struct free_nid *i, *next; > int nr = nr_shrink; > > if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS) > @@ -2498,14 +2497,22 @@ int f2fs_try_to_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > int nr_shrink) > return 0; > > spin_lock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock); > - list_for_each_entry_safe(i, next, &nm_i->free_nid_list, list) { > - if (nr_shrink <= 0 || > - nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS) > + while (nr_shrink) { > + struct free_nid *i; > + > + if (nm_i->nid_cnt[FREE_NID] <= MAX_FREE_NIDS) > break; > > + i = list_first_entry(&nm_i->free_nid_list, > + struct free_nid, list); > + list_del(&i->list); > + spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock); > + > __remove_free_nid(sbi, i, FREE_NID);
__remove_free_nid() will do list_del again. btw, how about just splitting out given nr_shrink into multiple trials? > kmem_cache_free(free_nid_slab, i); > nr_shrink--; > + > + spin_lock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock); > } > spin_unlock(&nm_i->nid_list_lock); > mutex_unlock(&nm_i->build_lock); > -- > 2.18.0.rc1