From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752487AbbIQSAa (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:00:30 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.136]:48923 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752150AbbIQSA1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 17 Sep 2015 14:00:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2015 11:00:22 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time Message-ID: <20150917180022.GA8884@jaegeuk-mac02.mot.com> References: <1442336146-82492-1-git-send-email-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <1442336146-82492-2-git-send-email-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <009901d0f143$28f593b0$7ae0bb10$@samsung.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <009901d0f143$28f593b0$7ae0bb10$@samsung.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 08:19:06PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@kernel.org] > > Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2015 12:56 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 2/2] f2fs: no need to lock for update_inode_page all the time > > > > As comment says, we don't need to call f2fs_lock_op in write_inode to prevent > > from producing dirty node pages all the time. > > That happens only when there is not enough free sections and we can avoid that > > by calling balance_fs in prior to that. > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim > > --- > > fs/f2fs/inode.c | 10 +++------- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c > > index 35aae65..0fc4d02 100644 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c > > @@ -296,16 +296,12 @@ int f2fs_write_inode(struct inode *inode, struct writeback_control *wbc) > > return 0; > > > > /* > > - * We need to lock here to prevent from producing dirty node pages > > + * We need to balance fs here to prevent from producing dirty node pages > > * during the urgent cleaning time when runing out of free sections. > > */ > > - f2fs_lock_op(sbi); > > - update_inode_page(inode); > > - f2fs_unlock_op(sbi); > > - > > - if (wbc) > > - f2fs_balance_fs(sbi); > > f2fs_balance_fs was moved here intentionally by Jin Xu in commit 92c4342fb72a > ("f2fs: avoid writing inode redundantly when creating a file") to avoid > redundantly inode page submitting, I was confused since I didn't know all > history here. So, should we change the position of f2fs_balance_fs? Oh, I remained that order. Fixed and merged. Thanks, > > Thanks, > > > + f2fs_balance_fs(sbi); > > > > + update_inode_page(inode); > > return 0; > > } > > > > -- > > 2.1.1 > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel