All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Cc: Chandan Babu R <chandan.babu@oracle.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/10] xfs: move RT inode locking out of __xfs_bunmapi
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:46:55 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240223164655.GO616564@frogsfrogsfrogs> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240223163737.GA3410@lst.de>

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 05:37:37PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 08:34:48AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > I don't really like using transaction flags to record lock state.
> > 
> > Would this be cleaner if we tracked this in struct xfs_rtalloc_args, and
> > had an xfs_rtalloc_acquire(mp, &args, XFS_ILOCK_{SHARED,EXCL}) method
> > that would set that up for us?
> 
> Urgg, that would be pretty ugly, and not work for the new locking in the
> extfree item once you add that, which has the same weird layering
> violation.

<nod> Dave occasionally talks about turning allocation into a log intent
so that we could decouple both of these things.  I think the difficulty
there is that you need a way for the allocator to notice that a
particular "free" extent is actually "busy".  That's trivial for the
bnobt allocator, but nonexistent for rtalloc.

> The only "sane" way out would be to always use a deferred item, which we
> should be doing for anything using new RT features, but we can't really
> do that for legacy file systems without forcing a log incompat flag.
> So while I don't particularly like the transaction flag it seems like
> the least evil solution.

I had thought about doing that for rtgroups=1 filesystems. :)

--D

  reply	other threads:[~2024-02-23 16:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-02-23  7:14 bring back RT delalloc support v2 Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23  7:14 ` [PATCH 01/10] xfs: make XFS_TRANS_LOWMODE match the other XFS_TRANS_ definitions Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 16:29   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23  7:14 ` [PATCH 02/10] xfs: move RT inode locking out of __xfs_bunmapi Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 16:34   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23 16:37     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 16:46       ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2024-02-23 16:49         ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:30           ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23  7:14 ` [PATCH 03/10] xfs: block deltas in xfs_trans_unreserve_and_mod_sb must be positive Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 16:52   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23  7:15 ` [PATCH 04/10] xfs: split xfs_mod_freecounter Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:09   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23 17:18     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:28       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23  7:15 ` [PATCH 05/10] xfs: reinstate RT support in xfs_bmapi_reserve_delalloc Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:12   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23  7:15 ` [PATCH 06/10] xfs: cleanup fdblock/frextent accounting in xfs_bmap_del_extent_delay Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:13   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23 17:15     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23  7:15 ` [PATCH 07/10] xfs: support RT inodes in xfs_mod_delalloc Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:20   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23 17:22     ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:29       ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23 17:30         ` Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23  7:15 ` [PATCH 08/10] xfs: look at m_frextents in xfs_iomap_prealloc_size for RT allocations Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:21   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23  7:15 ` [PATCH 09/10] xfs: stop the steal (of data blocks for RT indirect blocks) Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:25   ` Darrick J. Wong
2024-02-23  7:15 ` [PATCH 10/10] xfs: reinstate delalloc for RT inodes (if sb_rextsize == 1) Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-23 17:26   ` Darrick J. Wong
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-02-26 10:04 bring back RT delalloc support v3 Christoph Hellwig
2024-02-26 10:04 ` [PATCH 02/10] xfs: move RT inode locking out of __xfs_bunmapi Christoph Hellwig

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=20240223164655.GO616564@frogsfrogsfrogs \
    --to=djwong@kernel.org \
    --cc=chandan.babu@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=hch@lst.de \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.