On 2016/5/4 2:21, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
This patch modifies to retry truncating node blocks in -ENOMEM case.
Hi, Kim. in this patch, I think there is NO chance to retry for -ENOMEM.
This is because if exist_written_data returns false, we can confirm that
this inode has been released from orphan radix-tree:
f2fs_evict_inode
---> remove_inode_page
---> truncate_node
---> remove_orphan_inode
On this condition, err is 0, So it won't enter:
if (err && err != -ENOENT)
{
...
}
sequentially, there is no chance to truncate node blocks again.
I miss something else?
How about this patch?
--- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
@@ -345,6 +345,7 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
set_inode_flag(fi, FI_NO_ALLOC);
i_size_write(inode, 0);
+retry:
if (F2FS_HAS_BLOCKS(inode))
err = f2fs_truncate(inode, true);
@@ -354,6 +355,11 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
}
+ if (err == -ENOMEM) {
+ err = 0;
+ goto retry;
+ }
+
sb_end_intwrite(inode->i_sb);
no_delete:
stat_dec_inline_xattr(inode);
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/f2fs/inode.c | 7 ++++++-
1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
index f4ac851..5cccd7a 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
sb_start_intwrite(inode->i_sb);
set_inode_flag(fi, FI_NO_ALLOC);
i_size_write(inode, 0);
-
+retry:
if (F2FS_HAS_BLOCKS(inode))
err = f2fs_truncate(inode, true);
@@ -374,6 +374,11 @@ no_delete:
if (err && err != -ENOENT) {
if (!exist_written_data(sbi, inode->i_ino, ORPHAN_INO)) {
+ /* give more chances, if ENOMEM case */
+ if (err == -ENOMEM) {
+ err = 0;
+ goto retry;
+ }
/*
* get here because we failed to release resource
* of inode previously, reminder our user to run fsck
--
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
