lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 12/12] f2fs: use extent_cache by default
Hi Chao,

On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 08:36:16PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:40 AM
> > To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org;
> > linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
> > Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 12/12] f2fs: use extent_cache by default
> >
> > We don't need to handle the duplicate extent infot showrmation.
>
> information?

Fixed.

>
> >
> > The integrated rule is:
> > - update on-disk extent with largest one tracked by in-memory extent_cache
> > - destroy extent_tree for the truncation case
> > - drop per-inode extent_cache by shrinker
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>
> [snip]
>
> > @@ -538,7 +427,11 @@ static struct extent_node *__insert_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > }
> > }
> >
> > - return __attach_extent_node(sbi, et, ei, parent, p);
> > + en = __attach_extent_node(sbi, et, ei, parent, p);
> > +update_out:
> > + if (en && en->ei.len > et->largest.len)
> > + et->largest = en->ei;
>
> IMO, it's better to update cached_en here if it is invalid in
> __detach_extent_node, then cached_en and largest may point different
> extent info, it can expand our region of first level extent cache.

Agreed.

>
> [snip]
>
> > +
> > + /* free all extent info belong to this extent tree */
> > + f2fs_destroy_extent_node(inode);
>
> How about returning number of freed extent node for tracing.
>
> node_cnt = f2fs_destroy_extent_node(inode);

No problem.

>
> [snip]
>
> > @@ -237,10 +237,11 @@ void update_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *node_page)
> > ri->i_size = cpu_to_le64(i_size_read(inode));
> > ri->i_blocks = cpu_to_le64(inode->i_blocks);
> >
> > - read_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->ext_lock);
> > - set_raw_extent(&F2FS_I(inode)->ext, &ri->i_ext);
> > - read_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->ext_lock);
> > -
> > + if (F2FS_I(inode)->extent_tree)
>
> Could extent cache destroy after above check?

I don't think so.

The extent_tree is assigned as one way.
Once it is assigned, it will be deallocated only after evict_inode.

Thanks,

>
> Thanks,
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Don't Limit Your Business. Reach for the Cloud.
> GigeNET's Cloud Solutions provide you with the tools and support that
> you need to offload your IT needs and focus on growing your business.
> Configured For All Businesses. Start Your Cloud Today.
> https://www.gigenetcloud.com/
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-07-04 07:41    [W:0.116 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site