linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to name f2fs GC task as per partition instead of per device

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-id: <1360125680.26950.55.camel@kjgkr>
Date:	Wed, 06 Feb 2013 13:41:20 +0900
From:	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
To:	Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
	Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to name f2fs GC task as per partition instead of
 per device

Hi,

How about this?

2013-02-05 (화), 23:24 +0900, Namjae Jeon:
> From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
> 
> After the commit 2184ad190a79ae2b40b5f5db1fbde5c22db6d310, it allowed
> for naming GC threads based on the device.
> i.e., if we have F2FS formatted partition in different devices - we will
> have their GC thread names after the device. But, when we have a case like
> 2 or more partitions on the same device having F2FS filesystem.
> In that case we are not able to differentiate between the GC threads.
> So, to differentiate at all possible levels we can use the major/minor of
> the device to have unique identification in the name.
> 
> Before patch:
> root  9726  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:32   0:00 [f2fs_gc-8:48]
> root  9736  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:32   0:00 [f2fs_gc-8:16]
> root  9892  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:33   0:00 [f2fs_gc-8:32]
> root  9907  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:34   0:00 [f2fs_gc-8:32]
> 
> After Patch:
> root  16756  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:57   0:00 [f2fs_gc-8:18]
> root  16765  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:57   0:00 [f2fs_gc-8:19]
> root  16806  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:58   0:00 [f2fs_gc-8:34]
> root  16817  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:58   0:00 [f2fs_gc-8:52]
> 

root  16756  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:57   0:00 [f2fs_gc-sdb1]
root  16765  0.0  0.0  0  0 ?  S  14:57   0:00 [f2fs_gc-sdb2]

IMO, it would be better to describe like this.
We can simply use bdevname(bdev, name), so if no objection, I'll rebase
this patch with this.
Please, give me your opinion.
Thanks,


> Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>
> Signed-off-by: Amit Sahrawat <a.sahrawat@...sung.com>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/gc.c |    3 ++-
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> index 742135a..b0c1f8c 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> @@ -91,6 +91,7 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
>  int start_gc_thread(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>  {
>  	struct f2fs_gc_kthread *gc_th;
> +	dev_t dev = sbi->sb->s_bdev->bd_dev;
>  
>  	if (!test_opt(sbi, BG_GC))
>  		return 0;
> @@ -101,7 +102,7 @@ int start_gc_thread(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>  	sbi->gc_thread = gc_th;
>  	init_waitqueue_head(&sbi->gc_thread->gc_wait_queue_head);
>  	sbi->gc_thread->f2fs_gc_task = kthread_run(gc_thread_func, sbi,
> -				"f2fs_gc-%s", dev_name(sbi->sb->s_bdi->dev));
> +				"f2fs_gc-%u:%u", MAJOR(dev), MINOR(dev));
>  	if (IS_ERR(gc_th->f2fs_gc_task)) {
>  		kfree(gc_th);
>  		sbi->gc_thread = NULL;

-- 
Jaegeuk Kim
Samsung

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (837 bytes)