Hi Jaegeuk, > -----Original Message----- > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 2:40 AM > To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim > Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 12/12] f2fs: use extent_cache by default > > We don't need to handle the duplicate extent infot showrmation. information? > > The integrated rule is: > - update on-disk extent with largest one tracked by in-memory extent_cache > - destroy extent_tree for the truncation case > - drop per-inode extent_cache by shrinker > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx> [snip] > @@ -538,7 +427,11 @@ static struct extent_node *__insert_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > } > } > > - return __attach_extent_node(sbi, et, ei, parent, p); > + en = __attach_extent_node(sbi, et, ei, parent, p); > +update_out: > + if (en && en->ei.len > et->largest.len) > + et->largest = en->ei; IMO, it's better to update cached_en here if it is invalid in __detach_extent_node, then cached_en and largest may point different extent info, it can expand our region of first level extent cache. [snip] > + > + /* free all extent info belong to this extent tree */ > + f2fs_destroy_extent_node(inode); How about returning number of freed extent node for tracing. node_cnt = f2fs_destroy_extent_node(inode); [snip] > @@ -237,10 +237,11 @@ void update_inode(struct inode *inode, struct page *node_page) > ri->i_size = cpu_to_le64(i_size_read(inode)); > ri->i_blocks = cpu_to_le64(inode->i_blocks); > > - read_lock(&F2FS_I(inode)->ext_lock); > - set_raw_extent(&F2FS_I(inode)->ext, &ri->i_ext); > - read_unlock(&F2FS_I(inode)->ext_lock); > - > + if (F2FS_I(inode)->extent_tree) Could extent cache destroy after above check? Thanks, -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
