RE: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: use atomic variable for total_extent_tree

[Chao Yu]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 3:35 PM
> To: Chao Yu
> Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: use atomic variable for total_extent_tree
> 
> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 01:28:09PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> > Hi Jaegeuk,
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Jaegeuk Kim [mailto:jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:39 AM
> > > To: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> > > linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > Cc: Jaegeuk Kim
> > > Subject: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: use atomic variable for total_extent_tree
> > >
> > > It would be better to use atomic variable for total_extent_tree.
> >
> > total_extent_tree was protected by extent_tree_lock semaphore, so intention here
> > is to make related calculation in available_free_memory or update_general_status
> > more accurate, right?
> 
> Moreover, another major thing is to specify it is atomic along with other extent
> counts.

Right, :) Please add:

Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <chao2.yu@xxxxxxxxxxx>


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/