Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] f2fs: clear get_ssr_cost | From | Yunlong Song <> | Date | Mon, 4 Sep 2017 09:54:07 +0800 |
| |
The update_sit_entry provides this: ... 1658 if (!f2fs_test_bit(offset, se->ckpt_valid_map)) 1659 se->ckpt_valid_blocks += del; ... As a result, the ckpt_valid_blocks is always larger than valid_blocks. If not correct, can you provide the case valid_blocks larger than ckpt_valid_blocks?
On 2017/9/4 9:17, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2017/9/1 20:14, Yunlong Song wrote: >> se->ckpt_valid_blocks is always larger than se->valid_blocks, so >> get_ssr_cost can be cleared. > I think this is not correct. > > Thanks, > >> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com> >> --- >> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 11 +---------- >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 10 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> index cd147e7..b226760 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> @@ -277,20 +277,11 @@ static unsigned int get_greedy_cost(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, >> valid_blocks * 2 : valid_blocks; >> } >> >> -static unsigned int get_ssr_cost(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, >> - unsigned int segno) >> -{ >> - struct seg_entry *se = get_seg_entry(sbi, segno); >> - >> - return se->ckpt_valid_blocks > se->valid_blocks ? >> - se->ckpt_valid_blocks : se->valid_blocks; >> -} >> - >> static inline unsigned int get_gc_cost(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, >> unsigned int segno, struct victim_sel_policy *p) >> { >> if (p->alloc_mode == SSR) >> - return get_ssr_cost(sbi, segno); >> + return get_seg_entry(sbi, segno)->ckpt_valid_blocks; >> >> /* alloc_mode == LFS */ >> if (p->gc_mode == GC_GREEDY) >> > > . >
-- Thanks, Yunlong Song
| |