From: Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
To: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@gmail.com>
Cc: jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>,
Pankaj Kumar <pankaj.km@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: add remount_fs callback support
Date: Thu, 06 Jun 2013 15:52:16 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <51B03FB0.80306@cn.fujitsu.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAKYAXd_jFuG00-HWQREKieXdqBGEAs+W0imvYZjCpGAH5S4H9A@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Namjae,
On 06/05/2013 12:34 PM, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> 2013/6/4 Gu Zheng <guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>:
>> On 06/01/2013 03:20 PM, Namjae Jeon wrote:
>>
>>> From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@samsung.com>
>>>
>>> Add the f2fs_remount function call which will be used
>>> during the filesystem remounting. This function
>>> will help us to change the mount options specific to
>>> f2fs.
>>>
>>> Also modify the f2fs background_gc mount option, which
>>> will allow the user to dynamically trun on/off the
>>> garbage collection in f2fs based on the background_gc
>>> value. If background_gc=0, Garbage collection will
>>> be turned off & if background_gc=1, Garbage collection
>>> will be truned on.
>>
>>
>> Hi Namjae,
> Hi. Gu.
>
>> I think splitting these two changes into single ones seems better.
>> Refer to the inline comments.
> I don't think so. Mount option background_gc is changed to make
> remount_fs working in the correct way.
Yes, I know. Maybe you somewhat misread my words.
Though remount_fs is dependent on changing background_gc option, but the change of background_gc option
and the adding remount_fs support are two different changes.
In order to make each patch simple and clear, maybe you need to split into single ones,
such as:
[PATCH 1/3] f2fs: Modify the f2fs background_gc mount option
[PATCH 2/3] f2fs: add remount_fs callback support
[PATCH 3/3] f2fs: reorganise the function get_victim_by_default
Just a personal suggestion, if you think it is worthless, please ignore it.:)
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Gu
>>
>>
>> Though simply option show is enough, but I think the "background_gc=on/off" is more friendly.
> Yes, Agree. I will update.
>
>>
>>> +
>>> + /**
>>> + * We stop the GC thread if FS is mounted as RO
>>> + * or if background_gc = 0 is passed in mount
>>> + * option. Also sync the filesystem.
>>> + */
>>> + if ((*flags & MS_RDONLY) || !test_opt(sbi, BG_GC)) {
>>
>>
>> Another condition: The old mount is not RO.
> I don't think that it is needed. I think current condition check can
> be covered about all cases.
> Am I missing something ?
Maybe. If the old mount is RO, so does the remount. It still can pass the judgement here, right?
Though the following stop_gc_thread() and f2fs_sync_fs() can handle this case well, but this
is unnecessary and needless. If we add additional judgement of whether old mount is not RO can avoid this.
Thanks,
Gu
>
>>
>>> + stop_gc_thread(sbi);
>>> + f2fs_sync_fs(sb, 1);
>>> + } else if (test_opt(sbi, BG_GC) && !sbi->gc_thread) {
>>> + err = start_gc_thread(sbi);
>>> + if (err)
>>> + goto restore_opts;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + /* Update the POSIXACL Flag */
>>> + sb->s_flags = (sb->s_flags & ~MS_POSIXACL) |
>>> + (test_opt(sbi, POSIX_ACL) ? MS_POSIXACL : 0);
>>
>>
>> Maybe you forget to update the flags with MS_RDONLY or ~MS_RDONLY, if the flags changed.
> No, we don't need to check this flags. sb-s_flags will be updated by
> MS_REMOUNT of vfs.(do_remount_sb)
>
>>
>>> + return 0;
>>> +
>>> +restore_opts:
>>> + sb->s_flags = old_sb_flags;
>>
>>
>> There is no need to restore sb->s_flags, parse_options() did not change it.
>> no need to store the old sb->s_flags too.
> Yes, right, I will update.
>
>>
>>>
>>> - /* After POR, we can run background GC thread */
>>> - err = start_gc_thread(sbi);
>>> - if (err)
>>> - goto fail;
>>> + /* After POR, we can run background GC thread.*/
>>> + if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
>>> + /**
>>> + * If filesystem is mounted as read-only then
>>> + * do not start the gc_thread.
>>> + */
>>
>> It seems that the comment here is against with the logic.
> hum.. Okay, I will update comment to avoid some confusion.
>
> Thanks for review :)
> I will post v2 patch including your opinion soon.
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-06 7:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-01 7:20 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: add remount_fs callback support Namjae Jeon
2013-06-04 4:14 ` Gu Zheng
2013-06-05 4:34 ` Namjae Jeon
2013-06-06 7:52 ` Gu Zheng [this message]
2013-06-06 13:05 ` Namjae Jeon
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-06-16 0:48 Namjae Jeon
2013-06-17 2:39 ` Gu Zheng
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=51B03FB0.80306@cn.fujitsu.com \
--to=guz.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jaegeuk.kim@samsung.com \
--cc=linkinjeon@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=namjae.jeon@samsung.com \
--cc=pankaj.km@samsung.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).