Hi, Jay,
Sorry for the mistake in last mail, the ovp is 462, and the reserved is 235.
I check the code and have not found problems with p.max_search yet.
Just forget the this patch, since there is still 870 segments below, so
it should
not be the assumed case of this patch.
By the way, I
Hi, Jay,
Sorry for the mistake in last mail, the ovp is 462, and the reserved is 235.
I check the code and have not found problems with p.max_search yet.
Just forget the this patch, since there is still 870 segments below, so
it should
not be the assumed case of this patch.
By the way, I
On 07/14, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Suppose that the valid blocks of each section are all over
> sbi->fggc_threshold,
> and even has_not_enough_free_secs is true, f2fs_gc cannot do its job since the
> no_fggc_candidate always returns true. As a result, the reserved segments can
> be
> used up, and
On 07/14, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Suppose that the valid blocks of each section are all over
> sbi->fggc_threshold,
> and even has_not_enough_free_secs is true, f2fs_gc cannot do its job since the
> no_fggc_candidate always returns true. As a result, the reserved segments can
> be
> used up, and
Hi Jay,
fggc_threshold is 507, reserved_segment is 462.
On 2017/7/22 5:07, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
Hi Yunlong,
On 07/20, Yunlong Song wrote:
Hi, Jay,
The distribution is like this, unit is segment counts:
cnt_free: 0 (free blocks)
cnt_full: 25182 (segment which has 512 blocks)
Hi Jay,
fggc_threshold is 507, reserved_segment is 462.
On 2017/7/22 5:07, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
Hi Yunlong,
On 07/20, Yunlong Song wrote:
Hi, Jay,
The distribution is like this, unit is segment counts:
cnt_free: 0 (free blocks)
cnt_full: 25182 (segment which has 512 blocks)
Hi Yunlong,
On 07/20, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Hi, Jay,
> The distribution is like this, unit is segment counts:
> cnt_free: 0 (free blocks)
> cnt_full: 25182 (segment which has 512 blocks)
> cnt_over: 25192 (segment which valid blocks over fggc_threshold)
> cnt_below: 870
Hi Yunlong,
On 07/20, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Hi, Jay,
> The distribution is like this, unit is segment counts:
> cnt_free: 0 (free blocks)
> cnt_full: 25182 (segment which has 512 blocks)
> cnt_over: 25192 (segment which valid blocks over fggc_threshold)
> cnt_below: 870
Hi, Jay,
The distribution is like this, unit is segment counts:
cnt_free: 0 (free blocks)
cnt_full: 25182 (segment which has 512 blocks)
cnt_over: 25192 (segment which valid blocks over fggc_threshold)
cnt_below: 870 (segment which valid blocks below fggc_threshold)
The test
Hi, Jay,
The distribution is like this, unit is segment counts:
cnt_free: 0 (free blocks)
cnt_full: 25182 (segment which has 512 blocks)
cnt_over: 25192 (segment which valid blocks over fggc_threshold)
cnt_below: 870 (segment which valid blocks below fggc_threshold)
The test
On 07/16, sylinux wrote:
> In fact，this is not "suppose" case yet, we have already met this problem
> several times in some test suits for corner case, or I cannot notice that
> this could happen.
So, have you taken a look at distribution of valid blocks in that case?
I'm wondering what
On 07/16, sylinux wrote:
> In fact，this is not "suppose" case yet, we have already met this problem
> several times in some test suits for corner case, or I cannot notice that
> this could happen.
So, have you taken a look at distribution of valid blocks in that case?
I'm wondering what
Hi Jay,
In fact，this is not "suppose" case yet, we have already met this problem
several times in some test suits for corner case, or I cannot notice that this
could happen.
On 2017/7/16 9:09, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Yunlong,
>
> On 07/14, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> Suppose that the valid
Hi Jay,
In fact，this is not "suppose" case yet, we have already met this problem
several times in some test suits for corner case, or I cannot notice that this
could happen.
On 2017/7/16 9:09, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Yunlong,
>
> On 07/14, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> Suppose that the valid
Hi Yunlong,
On 07/14, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Suppose that the valid blocks of each section are all over
> sbi->fggc_threshold,
How about adding a kernel message first to detect your *supposed* sceanrio?
If that happens, it'll be a sort of bug which we haven't assumed.
Thanks,
> and even
Hi Yunlong,
On 07/14, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Suppose that the valid blocks of each section are all over
> sbi->fggc_threshold,
How about adding a kernel message first to detect your *supposed* sceanrio?
If that happens, it'll be a sort of bug which we haven't assumed.
Thanks,
> and even
Suppose that the valid blocks of each section are all over sbi->fggc_threshold,
and even has_not_enough_free_secs is true, f2fs_gc cannot do its job since the
no_fggc_candidate always returns true. As a result, the reserved segments can be
used up, and finally there is no free segment at all, and
Suppose that the valid blocks of each section are all over sbi->fggc_threshold,
and even has_not_enough_free_secs is true, f2fs_gc cannot do its job since the
no_fggc_candidate always returns true. As a result, the reserved segments can be
used up, and finally there is no free segment at all, and
18 matches
Mail list logo
