On 2016/6/3 13:08, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 02:10:50PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Jaegeuk, >> >> On 2016/5/30 10:37, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> Hi Chao, >>> >>> On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 01:19:11PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> From: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> >>>> >>>> If we fail to move data page during foreground GC, we should give another >>>> chance to writeback that page which was set dirty previously by writer. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 5 ++++- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >>>> index 38d56f6..ee213a8 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >>>> @@ -653,12 +653,15 @@ static void move_data_page(struct inode *inode, >>>> block_t bidx, int gc_type) >>>> .page = page, >>>> .encrypted_page = NULL, >>>> }; >>>> + bool is_dirty = PageDirty(page); >>>> + >>>> set_page_dirty(page); >>>> f2fs_wait_on_page_writeback(page, DATA, true); >>>> if (clear_page_dirty_for_io(page)) >>>> inode_dec_dirty_pages(inode); >>>> set_cold_data(page); >>>> - do_write_data_page(&fio); >>>> + if (do_write_data_page(&fio) && is_dirty) >>>> + set_page_dirty(page); >>> >>> If this page is truncated with -ENOENT, we don't need to set it dirty again. >> >> Agree >> >>> I expect that, if we get an error here, do_garbage_collect() would retry >>> FG_GC >> >> IIRC, you have reworked the FG_GC flows changed from an infinite loop to >> trying >> do the movement just one time. Here, I think if there are just few of blocks >> are >> failed to be moved, we can give one more time for retrying. How do you think? > > Mostly I expected here -ENOENT caused by race condition.
If we hit ENOENT case, we can pass get_valid_blocks check, so we don't need to worry about this case, right? > Do we have another expectation? ENOMEM or EIO? Thanks, > > Thanks, > >> >>> again. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> clear_cold_data(page); >>>> } >>>> out: >>>> -- >>>> 2.7.2 >>> . >>> > . >
