On 2018/7/12 23:09, Yunlong Song wrote:
> For the case when sbi->segs_per_sec > 1, take section:segment = 5 for
> example, if the section prefree_map is ...previous section | current
> section (1 1 0 1 1) | next section..., then the start = x, end = x + 1,
> after start = start_segno + sbi->segs_per_sec, start = x + 5, then it
> will skip x + 3 and x + 4, but their bitmap is still set, which will
> cause duplicated f2fs_issue_discard of this same section in the next
> write_checkpoint, so fix it.
I didn't get it, if # 2 segment is not prefree state, so it still has valid
blocks there, so we won't issue discard due to below condition, right?
if (!IS_CURSEC(sbi, secno) &&
!get_valid_blocks(sbi, start, true))
Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.s...@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index 47b6595..fd38b61 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -1684,8 +1684,23 @@ void f2fs_clear_prefree_segments(struct f2fs_sb_info
> *sbi,
> start = start_segno + sbi->segs_per_sec;
> if (start < end)
> goto next;
> - else
> - end = start - 1;
> + else {
> + start_segno = start;
> +
> + while (1) {
> + start = find_next_bit(prefree_map, start_segno,
> + end +
> 1);
> + if (start >= start_segno)
> + break;
> + end = find_next_zero_bit(prefree_map,
> start_segno,
> +
> start + 1);
> + for (i = start; i < end; i++)
> + clear_bit(i, prefree_map);
> + dirty_i->nr_dirty[PRE] -= end - start;
> + }
> +
> + end = start_segno - 1;
> + }
> }
> mutex_unlock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock);
>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
