Hi, Jaegeuk,
On Tue, 2014-07-08 at 00:58 -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Huang,
>
> It occurs a merge conflict.
> Please check the patch.
Sorry, my fault. I think I need to base my patch on f2fs tree instead
of latest Linus' tree?
> Anyway, IMO, it needs to place f2fs_balance_fs somewhere in get_data_block.
Yes. I think so too. So you prefer to add f2fs_balance_fs in both
f2fs_direct_IO and get_data_block, or just add f2fs_blance_fs in
get_data_block only?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
> Thanks,
>
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 01:46:28PM +0800, Huang Ying wrote:
> > Otherwise, if a large amount of direct IO writes were done, the
> > segment allocation may be failed because no enough segments are gced.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Huang, Ying <ying.hu...@intel.com>
> > ---
> > fs/f2fs/data.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > @@ -1038,6 +1038,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(int rw, st
> > {
> > struct file *file = iocb->ki_filp;
> > struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
> > + struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_SB(inode->i_sb);
> >
> > /* Let buffer I/O handle the inline data case. */
> > if (f2fs_has_inline_data(inode))
> > @@ -1046,8 +1047,11 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(int rw, st
> > if (check_direct_IO(inode, rw, iter, offset))
> > return 0;
> >
> > + if (rw == WRITE)
> > + f2fs_balance_fs(sbi);
> > +
> > /* clear fsync mark to recover these blocks */
> > - fsync_mark_clear(F2FS_SB(inode->i_sb), inode->i_ino);
> > + fsync_mark_clear(sbi, inode->i_ino);
> >
> > return blockdev_direct_IO(rw, iocb, inode, iter, offset,
> > get_data_block);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
