Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check bdi-dirty_exceeded when trying to skip data writes

2014-07-02 Thread Andrew Morton
On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:58:38 +0900 Jaegeuk Kim jaeg...@kernel.org wrote: If we don't check the current backing device status, balance_dirty_pages can fall into infinite pausing routine. This can be occurred when a lot of directories make a small number of dirty dentry pages including files.

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 3/4] f2fs: use find_next_bit_le rather than test_bit_le in, find_in_block

2014-07-02 Thread Changman Lee
Hi, Gu Unfortunately, find_next_bit isn't always better than test_bit. Refer to commit 5d0c667121bfc8be76d1580f485bddbe73465d1a I remember that Perviously, Jaegeuk had changed find_next_bit to test_bit because find_next_bit spent much cpu time in the case of there is lot of dentries like a

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check bdi-dirty_exceeded when trying to skip data writes

2014-07-02 Thread Jaegeuk Kim
On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:54:20PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: On Sat, 28 Jun 2014 20:58:38 +0900 Jaegeuk Kim jaeg...@kernel.org wrote: If we don't check the current backing device status, balance_dirty_pages can fall into infinite pausing routine. This can be occurred when a lot of

[f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: do checkpoint for the renamed inode

2014-07-02 Thread Jaegeuk Kim
If an inode is renamed, it should be registered as file_lost_pino to conduct checkpoint at f2fs_sync_file. Otherwise, the inode cannot be recovered due to no dent_mark in the following scenario. Note that, this scenario is from xfstests/322. 1. create a 2. fsync a 3. rename a to b 4. fsync b 5.

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: check bdi-dirty_exceeded when trying to skip data writes

2014-07-02 Thread Andrew Morton
On Wed, 2 Jul 2014 02:31:26 -0700 Jaegeuk Kim jaeg...@kernel.org wrote: --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c @@ -43,6 +43,8 @@ bool available_free_memory(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type) mem_size = (nm_i-nat_cnt * sizeof(struct nat_entry)) 12; res =

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 3/4] f2fs: use find_next_bit_le rather than test_bit_le in, find_in_block

2014-07-02 Thread Gu Zheng
Hi Changman, On 07/02/2014 03:49 PM, Changman Lee wrote: Hi, Gu Unfortunately, find_next_bit isn't always better than test_bit. Refer to commit 5d0c667121bfc8be76d1580f485bddbe73465d1a I remember that Perviously, Jaegeuk had changed find_next_bit to test_bit because find_next_bit spent

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 3/4] f2fs: use find_next_bit_le rather than test_bit_le in, find_in_block

2014-07-02 Thread Gu Zheng
Hi Jaegeuk, On 07/02/2014 06:30 PM, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: Thanks Changman for reminding this. :) If there are a lot of ones in the bit stream, find_next_bit_le would cause some overhead to translate the bits. However, it would be effective to use find_next_bit_le if the bit stream looks

[f2fs-dev] how to save your budget for promotion gift.

2014-07-02 Thread GoodFortune Promotion
Dear Friend: Have a good day! GoodFortune Promotion Co,Ltd located in china,can supply all kinds of customed promotion gift. Even samll order is available,pls check our web,any further inquiry,contact us feel feel at once. Best Regards Paul Lee ShangHai GoodFortune Gifts Promotion