[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <48725f58-1a48-73f3-80cf-a0c5efc3b470@kernel.org>
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2021 18:50:54 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: Daeho Jeong <daeho43@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, kernel-team@...roid.com
Cc: Daeho Jeong <daehojeong@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v4 2/2] f2fs: introduce periodic iostat io
latency traces
On 2021/8/20 11:52, Daeho Jeong wrote:
> +void iostat_update_and_unbind_ctx(struct bio *bio, int rw)
> +{
> + struct bio_iostat_ctx *iostat_ctx = bio->bi_private;
> + int sync_type = bio->bi_opf & REQ_SYNC ? 0 : 1;
int sync_type = bio->bi_opf & REQ_SYNC ? 1 : 0;
Right?
> int f2fs_init_iostat(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> {
> /* init iostat info */
> spin_lock_init(&sbi->iostat_lock);
> + spin_lock_init(&sbi->iostat_lat_lock);
> sbi->iostat_enable = false;
> sbi->iostat_period_ms = DEFAULT_IOSTAT_PERIOD_MS;
> + sbi->iostat_io_lat = f2fs_kzalloc(sbi, sizeof(struct iostat_lat_info),
> + GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!sbi->iostat_io_lat)
> + return -ENOMEM;
What do you think of just embedding iostat_io_lat structure into f2fs_sb_info
structure? it's minor thing though.
Thanks,
Powered by blists - more mailing lists