lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Sep]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: add new idle interval timing for discard and gc paths
On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 03:09:58PM -0700, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 09/11, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2018/9/10 11:47, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > index abf9256..6070681 100644
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> > > @@ -1093,6 +1093,8 @@ enum {
> > > enum {
> > > CP_TIME,
> > > REQ_TIME,
> > > + DISCARD_TIME,
> > > + GC_TIME,
> > > MAX_TIME,
> > > };
> > >
> > > @@ -1347,14 +1349,35 @@ static inline void f2fs_update_time(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
> > > sbi->last_time[type] = jiffies;
> > > }
> > >
> > > -static inline bool f2fs_time_over(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
> > > +static inline bool f2fs_time_over_cp(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>
> I don't see why we need this separately.

Yes, not really required. I will update it.

>
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long interval = sbi->interval_time[CP_TIME] * HZ;
> > > +
> > > + return time_after(jiffies, sbi->last_time[CP_TIME] + interval);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline bool f2fs_time_over_req(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
> > > +{
> > > + unsigned long interval = sbi->interval_time[type] * HZ;
> > > +
> > > + return time_after(jiffies, sbi->last_time[REQ_TIME] + interval);
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static inline unsigned int f2fs_get_wait_time(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > > + int type)
>
> f2fs_time_to_wait()?

Sure.

> > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > > index 5c8d004..c0bafea 100644
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > > @@ -83,8 +83,10 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
> > > if (!mutex_trylock(&sbi->gc_mutex))
> > > goto next;
> > >
> > > - if (!is_idle(sbi)) {
> > > - increase_sleep_time(gc_th, &wait_ms);
> > > + if (!is_idle(sbi, GC_TIME)) {
> > > + wait_ms = f2fs_get_wait_time(sbi, GC_TIME);
> >
> > It seems this patch changes the method of increasing wait_ms here, if device is
> > busy, we may wake up GC thread earlier than before, not sure we should do this.
> >
> > To Jaegeuk, how do you think of this?
>
> Yes, please let us discuss this in another patch.

Sure, I will submit this in another patch for discussion.

--
--
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-09-12 10:28    [W:0.069 / U:0.636 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site