On 08/02/2013 09:19 AM, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>> index 78777cd..63813be 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>> @@ -430,6 +430,10 @@ struct f2fs_sb_info {
>>> #endif
>>> unsigned int last_victim[2]; /* last victim segment # */
>>> spinlock_t stat_lock; /* lock for stat operations */
>>> +
>>> + /* For sysfs suppport */
>>> + struct kobject s_kobj;
>>> + struct completion s_kobj_unregister;
>>
> Hi. Gu.
>> What is this completion used for? Or it's an ahead design? I do not find
>> synchronization
>> routines use it. Am I missing something?
> You're right. it is my mistake. I will update it on next version patch.
>
>>
>>
>>> };
>>>
>>> /*
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>> index 35f9b1a..60d4f67 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>> @@ -29,10 +29,11 @@ static struct kmem_cache *winode_slab;
>>> static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
>>> {
>>> struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = data;
>>> + struct f2fs_gc_kthread *gc_th = sbi->gc_thread;
>>> wait_queue_head_t *wq = &sbi->gc_thread->gc_wait_queue_head;
>>> long wait_ms;
>>>
>>> - wait_ms = GC_THREAD_MIN_SLEEP_TIME;
>>> + wait_ms = gc_th->min_sleep_time;
>>>
>>> do {
>>> if (try_to_freeze())
>>> @@ -45,7 +46,7 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
>>> break;
>>>
>>> if (sbi->sb->s_writers.frozen >= SB_FREEZE_WRITE) {
>>> - wait_ms = GC_THREAD_MAX_SLEEP_TIME;
>>> + wait_ms = increase_sleep_time(gc_th, wait_ms);
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -66,15 +67,15 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> if (!is_idle(sbi)) {
>>> - wait_ms = increase_sleep_time(wait_ms);
>>> + wait_ms = increase_sleep_time(gc_th, wait_ms);
>>> mutex_unlock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
>>> continue;
>>> }
>>>
>>> if (has_enough_invalid_blocks(sbi))
>>> - wait_ms = decrease_sleep_time(wait_ms);
>>> + wait_ms = decrease_sleep_time(gc_th, wait_ms);
>>> else
>>> - wait_ms = increase_sleep_time(wait_ms);
>>> + wait_ms = increase_sleep_time(gc_th, wait_ms);
>>>
>>> #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_STAT_FS
>>> sbi->bg_gc++;
>>> @@ -82,7 +83,7 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
>>>
>>> /* if return value is not zero, no victim was selected */
>>> if (f2fs_gc(sbi))
>>> - wait_ms = GC_THREAD_NOGC_SLEEP_TIME;
>>> + wait_ms = gc_th->no_gc_sleep_time;
>>> } while (!kthread_should_stop());
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>> @@ -101,6 +102,10 @@ int start_gc_thread(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>> goto out;
>>> }
>>>
>>> + gc_th->min_sleep_time = DEF_GC_THREAD_MIN_SLEEP_TIME;
>>> + gc_th->max_sleep_time = DEF_GC_THREAD_MAX_SLEEP_TIME;
>>> + gc_th->no_gc_sleep_time = DEF_GC_THREAD_NOGC_SLEEP_TIME;
>>> +
>>> sbi->gc_thread = gc_th;
>>> init_waitqueue_head(&sbi->gc_thread->gc_wait_queue_head);
>>> sbi->gc_thread->f2fs_gc_task = kthread_run(gc_thread_func, sbi,
>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.h b/fs/f2fs/gc.h
>>> index 2c6a6bd..f4bf44c 100644
>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.h
>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.h
>>> @@ -13,9 +13,9 @@
>>> * whether IO subsystem is idle
>>> * or not
>>> */
>>> -#define GC_THREAD_MIN_SLEEP_TIME 30000 /* milliseconds */
>>> -#define GC_THREAD_MAX_SLEEP_TIME 60000
>>> -#define GC_THREAD_NOGC_SLEEP_TIME 300000 /* wait 5 min */
>>> +#define DEF_GC_THREAD_MIN_SLEEP_TIME 30000 /* milliseconds */
>>> +#define DEF_GC_THREAD_MAX_SLEEP_TIME 60000
>>> +#define DEF_GC_THREAD_NOGC_SLEEP_TIME 300000 /* wait 5 min */
>>> #define LIMIT_INVALID_BLOCK 40 /* percentage over total user space
>>> */
>>> #define LIMIT_FREE_BLOCK 40 /* percentage over invalid + free space */
>>>
>>> @@ -25,6 +25,11 @@
>>> struct f2fs_gc_kthread {
>>> struct task_struct *f2fs_gc_task;
>>> wait_queue_head_t gc_wait_queue_head;
>>> +
>>> + /* for gc sleep time */
>>> + unsigned int min_sleep_time;
>>> + unsigned int max_sleep_time;
>>> + unsigned int no_gc_sleep_time;
>>
>> Though these attributes are used for gc thread, and in current design
>> gc_thread is always
>> singleton per f2fs_sb, but thare're in fact f2fs sb infos. So I think it's
>> to attach
>> these to f2fs_sb_info. What's your opinion?
> It does not matter wherever it is. but I think that these gc time are
> for gc thread.
> So I put gc time to gc thread.
Yeah, in fact it's also OK. :)
Regards,
Gu
>
> Thanks for review :)
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gu
>>
>>> };
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
