From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:47774 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727238AbeIRE20 (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:28:26 -0400 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , stable@vger.kernel.org, Yunlei He , Chao Yu , Jaegeuk Kim , Sasha Levin Subject: [PATCH 4.9 46/70] f2fs: try grabbing node page lock aggressively in sync scenario Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 00:42:19 +0200 Message-Id: <20180917211652.859764411@linuxfoundation.org> In-Reply-To: <20180917211649.099135838@linuxfoundation.org> References: <20180917211649.099135838@linuxfoundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: stable-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: 4.9-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know. ------------------ From: Chao Yu [ Upstream commit 4b270a8cc5047682f0a3f3f9af3b498408dbd2bc ] In synchronous scenario, like in checkpoint(), we are going to flush dirty node pages to device synchronously, we can easily failed writebacking node page due to trylock_page() failure, especially in condition of intensive lock competition, which can cause long latency of checkpoint(). So let's use lock_page() in synchronous scenario to avoid this issue. Signed-off-by: Yunlei He Signed-off-by: Chao Yu Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/f2fs/node.c | 4 +++- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c @@ -1463,7 +1463,9 @@ next_step: !is_cold_node(page))) continue; lock_node: - if (!trylock_page(page)) + if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL) + lock_page(page); + else if (!trylock_page(page)) continue; if (unlikely(page->mapping != NODE_MAPPING(sbi))) {