On 02/22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Yunlong, > > This is NOT clean-up. What's your point here? I guess you wanted to do like this. >From 8d344ac45890dd95c5734fd29a19a7c19364c327 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@xxxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2017 20:50:49 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: do SSR for data when there is enough free space In allocate_segment_by_default(), need_SSR() already detected it's time to do SSR. So, let's try to find victims for data segments more aggressively in time. Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@xxxxxxxxxx> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- fs/f2fs/segment.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c index d01ee7b94702..c27dab43c42f 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c @@ -1541,7 +1541,7 @@ static int get_ssr_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type) struct curseg_info *curseg = CURSEG_I(sbi, type); const struct victim_selection *v_ops = DIRTY_I(sbi)->v_ops; - if (IS_NODESEG(type) || !has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, 0, 0)) + if (IS_NODESEG(type)) return v_ops->get_victim(sbi, &(curseg)->next_segno, BG_GC, type, SSR); -- 2.11.0
