Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752026AbaLERzw (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:55:52 -0500 Received: from smtp.codeaurora.org ([198.145.11.231]:45304 "EHLO smtp.codeaurora.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751949AbaLERzu (ORCPT ); Fri, 5 Dec 2014 12:55:50 -0500 Message-ID: <5481F1A1.50609@codeaurora.org> Date: Fri, 05 Dec 2014 19:55:45 +0200 From: Tanya Brokhman User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Richard Weinberger , dedekind1@gmail.com CC: linux-mtd@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/6] UBI: Fastmap: Make ubi_refill_pools() fair References: <1416835236-25185-1-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> <1416835236-25185-7-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> In-Reply-To: <1416835236-25185-7-git-send-email-richard@nod.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Richard, On 11/24/2014 3:20 PM, Richard Weinberger wrote: > Currently ubi_refill_pools() first fills the first and then > the second one. > If only very few free PEBs are available the second pool can get > zero PEBs. > Change ubi_refill_pools() to distribute free PEBs fair between > all pools. > > Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger > --- > drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------- > 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+), 37 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c b/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c > index f028b68..c2822f7 100644 > --- a/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c > +++ b/drivers/mtd/ubi/wl.c > @@ -583,59 +583,62 @@ static void return_unused_pool_pebs(struct ubi_device *ubi, > } > > /** > - * refill_wl_pool - refills all the fastmap pool used by the > - * WL sub-system. > + * ubi_refill_pools - refills all fastmap PEB pools. > * @ubi: UBI device description object > */ > -static void refill_wl_pool(struct ubi_device *ubi) > +void ubi_refill_pools(struct ubi_device *ubi) > { > + struct ubi_fm_pool *wl_pool = &ubi->fm_wl_pool; > + struct ubi_fm_pool *pool = &ubi->fm_pool; > struct ubi_wl_entry *e; > - struct ubi_fm_pool *pool = &ubi->fm_wl_pool; > + int enough; > > + spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock); > + > + return_unused_pool_pebs(ubi, wl_pool); > return_unused_pool_pebs(ubi, pool); > > - for (pool->size = 0; pool->size < pool->max_size; pool->size++) { > - if (!ubi->free.rb_node || > - (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 5)) > - break; > + wl_pool->size = 0; > + pool->size = 0; > > - e = find_wl_entry(ubi, &ubi->free, WL_FREE_MAX_DIFF); > - self_check_in_wl_tree(ubi, e, &ubi->free); > - rb_erase(&e->u.rb, &ubi->free); > - ubi->free_count--; > + for (;;) { You loop for max(pool->max_size, wl_pool->max_size) itterations. IMO, the code will be more clear if you use for(i=0; imax_size, wl_pool->max_size); i++) instead of "int enough". This is just coding style preference of course. I personally don't like for(;;) that much.... Just a suggestion. :) > + enough = 0; > + if (pool->size < pool->max_size) { > + if (!ubi->free.rb_node || > + (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 5)) > + break; > > - pool->pebs[pool->size] = e->pnum; > - } > - pool->used = 0; > -} > + e = wl_get_wle(ubi); > + if (!e) > + break; > > -/** > - * refill_wl_user_pool - refills all the fastmap pool used by ubi_wl_get_peb. > - * @ubi: UBI device description object > - */ > -static void refill_wl_user_pool(struct ubi_device *ubi) > -{ > - struct ubi_fm_pool *pool = &ubi->fm_pool; > + pool->pebs[pool->size] = e->pnum; > + pool->size++; > + } else > + enough++; > > - return_unused_pool_pebs(ubi, pool); > + if (wl_pool->size < wl_pool->max_size) { > + if (!ubi->free.rb_node || > + (ubi->free_count - ubi->beb_rsvd_pebs < 5)) > + break; > > - for (pool->size = 0; pool->size < pool->max_size; pool->size++) { > - pool->pebs[pool->size] = __wl_get_peb(ubi); > - if (pool->pebs[pool->size] < 0) > + e = find_wl_entry(ubi, &ubi->free, WL_FREE_MAX_DIFF); > + self_check_in_wl_tree(ubi, e, &ubi->free); > + rb_erase(&e->u.rb, &ubi->free); > + ubi->free_count--; why don't you use wl_get_peb() here? Other then that - I agree with the patch. So if you want to keep it as is, I'll add Reviewed-by. > + > + wl_pool->pebs[wl_pool->size] = e->pnum; > + wl_pool->size++; > + } else > + enough++; > + > + if (enough == 2) > break; > } > + > + wl_pool->used = 0; > pool->used = 0; > -} > > -/** > - * ubi_refill_pools - refills all fastmap PEB pools. > - * @ubi: UBI device description object > - */ > -void ubi_refill_pools(struct ubi_device *ubi) > -{ > - spin_lock(&ubi->wl_lock); > - refill_wl_pool(ubi); > - refill_wl_user_pool(ubi); > spin_unlock(&ubi->wl_lock); > } > > Thanks, Tanya Brokhman -- Qualcomm Israel, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a Linux Foundation Collaborative Project -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/