[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130508062455.GB8705@hli22-desktop>
Date: Wed, 8 May 2013 14:24:55 +0800
From: Haicheng Li <haicheng.li@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk.kim@...sung.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Haicheng Li <haicheng.lee@...il.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] f2fs: optimize build_free_nids()
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 07:33:59PM +0900, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> 2013-05-06 (월), 23:15 +0800, Haicheng Li:
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > index 1fe3fe2..3136224 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > @@ -1342,6 +1342,8 @@ static void build_free_nids(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> > if (nid >= nm_i->max_nid)
> > nid = 0;
> >
> > + if (nm_i->fcnt > 2 * MAX_FREE_NIDS)
> > + break;
>
> Could you explain when this can happen?
I'm thinking of this possible scenario:
as we don't hold any spinlock to protect the context, add_free_nid() could be
called by other thread anytime, e.g. by the gc_thread_func() in background.
then nm_i->fcnt could be increased as 2 * MAX_FREE_NIDS while i < FREE_NID_PAGES.
Anything I misconsidered?
> IMO, this is an unnecessary condition check, since the below condition
> that includes FREE_NID_PAGES already limits the number of free nids.
> Thanks,
hmm, the pros is that this check may possibly avoid some (< 4) unnecessary while-loop,
the cons is that too many checks of (nm_i->fcnt > 2 * MAX_FREE_NIDS)
would make the code looking messy and fragmentary...
> > if (i++ == FREE_NID_PAGES)
> > break;
> > }
>
> --
> Jaegeuk Kim
> Samsung
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists