> On 09/25, Chao Yu wrote:
> > Update allocation policy for ro feature:
> > - hot_data: allocating blocks by LBA ascending order
> > - hot_node: allocating blocks by LBA descending order
>
> This will increase the RO image size.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > mkfs/f2fs_format.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format.c index
> > 40ac589..8d0f410 100644
> > --- a/mkfs/f2fs_format.c
> > +++ b/mkfs/f2fs_format.c
> > @@ -544,10 +544,10 @@ static int f2fs_prepare_super_block(void)
> > }
> >
> > if (c.feature & cpu_to_le32(F2FS_FEATURE_RO)) {
> > - c.cur_seg[CURSEG_HOT_NODE] = 0;
> > + c.cur_seg[CURSEG_HOT_NODE] =
> last_section(last_zone(total_zones));
> > c.cur_seg[CURSEG_WARM_NODE] = 0;
> > c.cur_seg[CURSEG_COLD_NODE] = 0;
> > - c.cur_seg[CURSEG_HOT_DATA] = 1;
> > + c.cur_seg[CURSEG_HOT_DATA] = 0;
Hi,
I want to know that, does this change try to reduce the possibility of the 3rd
situation that
previous referred (f2fs: extent cache: support extent for no-compressed file)?
The largest
extent maybe only cover one part of continuous blocks in f2fs ro-image.
Thanks,
> > c.cur_seg[CURSEG_COLD_DATA] = 0;
> > c.cur_seg[CURSEG_WARM_DATA] = 0;
> > } else if (c.heap) {
> > --
> > 2.36.1
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
