diff mbox

f2fs: check free_sections for defragmentation

Message ID 20160901204605.21448-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org (mailing list archive)
State New, archived
Headers show

Commit Message

Jaegeuk Kim Sept. 1, 2016, 8:46 p.m. UTC 
Fix wrong condition check for defragmentation of a file.

Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
---
 fs/f2fs/file.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Chao Yu Sept. 7, 2016, 1:35 p.m. UTC | #1 
Hi Jaegeuk,

On 2016/9/2 4:46, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Fix wrong condition check for defragmentation of a file.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/file.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> index 37c24be..a8aa6fd 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
> @@ -2037,7 +2037,7 @@ static int f2fs_defragment_range(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>  	 * avoid defragment running in SSR mode when free section are allocated
>  	 * intensively
>  	 */
> -	if (has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, sec_num)) {
> +	if (free_sections(sbi) <= sec_num) {

Why don't we check dirty dentry/node/imeta blocks here? they will be generated
at any time after f2fs_balance_fs. So, isn't original condition more strict than
new one?

Thanks,

>  		err = -EAGAIN;
>  		goto out;
>  	}
> 
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff mbox

Patch

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
index 37c24be..a8aa6fd 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
@@ -2037,7 +2037,7 @@  static int f2fs_defragment_range(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
 	 * avoid defragment running in SSR mode when free section are allocated
 	 * intensively
 	 */
-	if (has_not_enough_free_secs(sbi, sec_num)) {
+	if (free_sections(sbi) <= sec_num) {
 		err = -EAGAIN;
 		goto out;
 	}