[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <443927c3-8eaf-8f00-0e41-2173143fe166@kernel.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Dec 2021 16:53:57 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: avoid down_write on nat_tree_lock
during checkpoint
On 2021/12/15 2:24, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Let's cache nat entry if there's no lock contention only.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/node.c | 4 ++++
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> index 556fcd8457f3..b1bc7d76da3b 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> @@ -430,6 +430,10 @@ static void cache_nat_entry(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, nid_t nid,
> struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i = NM_I(sbi);
> struct nat_entry *new, *e;
>
> + /* Let's mitigate lock contention of nat_tree_lock during checkpoint */
> + if (rwsem_is_locked(&sbi->cp_global_sem))
Why not down_write_trylock(nat_tree_lock)? cp_global_sem lock coverage is larger than
nat_tree_lock's in f2fs_write_checkpoint().
Thanks,
> + return;
> +
> new = __alloc_nat_entry(sbi, nid, false);
> if (!new)
> return;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists