Hi Chao,
On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 01:19:11PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> From: Chao Yu
>
> 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
> ---
> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 5 -
>
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
>>
>> 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.
>
Ping,
On 2016/5/21 13:19, Chao Yu wrote:
> From: Chao Yu
>
> 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
> ---
> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 5 -
> 1 file changed, 4 inser
On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:10:50PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> 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
> >>
> >> If we fail to move data page during foreground GC, we should give another
>
On 2016/6/3 13:08, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:10:50PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> 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
If we fail to move data page durin
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:13:21PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2016/6/3 13:08, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:10:50PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>
> >> On 2016/5/30 10:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> Hi Chao,
> >>>
> >>> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 01:19:11PM +0800, Chao Y
On 2016/6/3 13:17, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:13:21PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2016/6/3 13:08, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:10:50PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2016/5/30 10:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> On Sat,
On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:59:15PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
...
> >>> Do we have another expectation?
> >>
> >> ENOMEM or EIO?
> >
> > EIO will stop everything.
> > ENOMEM would be better to wait for a while from page reclaim?
>
> Agree, but for ioctl path, IMO, we don't need to let user waiting fo
8 matches
Mail list logo