From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S966663AbdAEDUD (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 22:20:03 -0500 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:59940 "EHLO szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751946AbdAEDUC (ORCPT ); Wed, 4 Jan 2017 22:20:02 -0500 Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 08/10] f2fs: relax async discard commands more To: Jaegeuk Kim , , , References: <20161230185117.3832-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <20161230185117.3832-8-jaegeuk@kernel.org> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2017 11:19:45 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2017/1/4 17:29, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2016/12/31 2:51, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >> This patch relaxes async discard commands to avoid waiting its end_io during >> checkpoint. >> Instead of waiting them during checkpoint, it will be done when actually reusing >> them. >> >> Test on initial partition of nvme drive. >> >> # time fstrim /mnt/test >> >> Before : 6.158s >> After : 4.822s >> >> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim > > Reviewed-by: Chao Yu > > One comment below, I still have a comment on this patch. >> -void f2fs_wait_all_discard_bio(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) >> +/* This should be covered by global mutex, &sit_i->sentry_lock */ >> +void f2fs_wait_discard_bio(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno) >> { >> struct list_head *wait_list = &(SM_I(sbi)->wait_list); >> struct bio_entry *be, *tmp; >> @@ -646,7 +650,15 @@ void f2fs_wait_all_discard_bio(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi) >> struct bio *bio = be->bio; >> int err; >> >> - wait_for_completion_io(&be->event); >> + if (!completion_done(&be->event)) { >> + if ((be->start_segno >= segno && >> + be->end_segno <= segno) || > > segno >= be->start_segno && segno < be->end_segno ? Can you check this? Thanks,