On 09/16, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 20:04, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2019/9/9 16:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>> On 2019/9/9 9:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>> GC must avoid select the same victim again. > >>>> > >>>> Blocks in previous victim will occupy addition free segment, I doubt > >>>> after this > >>>> change, FGGC may encounter out-of-free space issue more frequently. > >>> > >>> Hmm, actually this change seems wrong by sec_usage_check(). > >>> We may be able to avoid this only in the suspicious loop? > >>> > >>> --- > >>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 2 +- > >>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >>> > >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>> index e88f98ddf396..5877bd729689 100644 > >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>> @@ -1326,7 +1326,7 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool sync, > >>> round++; > >>> } > >>> > >>> - if (gc_type == FG_GC) > >>> + if (gc_type == FG_GC && seg_freed) > >> > >> That's original solution Sahitya provided to avoid infinite loop of GC, > >> but I > >> suggest to find the root cause first, then we added .invalid_segmap for > >> that > >> purpose. > > > > I've checked the Sahitya's patch. So, it seems the problem can happen due to > > is_alive or atomic_file. > > For some conditions, this doesn't help, for example, two sections contain the > same fewest valid blocks, it will cause to loop selecting them if it fails to > migrate blocks. > > How about keeping it as it is to find potential bug.
I think it'd be fine to merge this. Could you check the above scenario in more detail? Thanks, > > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> sbi->cur_victim_sec = NULL_SEGNO; > >>> > >>> if (sync) > >>> > > . > >
