From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com ([67.231.153.30]:6241 "EHLO mx0b-00082601.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750722AbaGWNXe (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:23:34 -0400 Message-ID: <53CFB74B.8080607@fb.com> Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 09:23:23 -0400 From: Josef Bacik MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Satoru Takeuchi , Wang Shilong , Chris Mason CC: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" , Kevin Brandstatter Subject: Re: [BUG] "Quota Ignored On write" problem still exist with 3.16-rc5 References: <53C8DEB0.1060404@jp.fujitsu.com> <53C8F720.4040803@cn.fujitsu.com> <53CF077D.4000106@jp.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <53CF077D.4000106@jp.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-2022-JP" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/22/2014 08:53 PM, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: > Hi Wang, > > (2014/07/18 19:29), Wang Shilong wrote: >> On 07/18/2014 04:45 PM, Satoru Takeuchi wrote: >>> Hi Josef, Chris, >>> >>> I found "Quota Ignored On write" problem still exist with 3.16-rc5, >>> which Kevin reported before. >>> >>> Kevin's report: >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg35292.html&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=cKCbChRKsMpTX8ybrSkonQ%3D%3D%0A&m=HiJFypfWVhg2Jy2US%2BNG1tF8q4%2BYUryNKec6yPkYJM4%3D%0A&s=9d1740f5e1701e4906fc04b77d9117052e84d6e16c30971b261d1acf41c10910 >>> >>> The result of bisect: >>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs%40vger.kernel.org/msg35304.html&k=ZVNjlDMF0FElm4dQtryO4A%3D%3D%0A&r=cKCbChRKsMpTX8ybrSkonQ%3D%3D%0A&m=HiJFypfWVhg2Jy2US%2BNG1tF8q4%2BYUryNKec6yPkYJM4%3D%0A&s=75ca6ce24c6d8e64fccdb8f61e519c59b1c6d027140c4f0f5eac24942a53a55d >> I guess this is because Josef's patch delayed qgroup accounting, it will >> cause @refer and @excl updating very late... >> >> The patch maybe optimize to merge some delayed refs(for example), but >> it updates qgroup accounting when commiting transaction which will be >> very late, >> we may have accumulated many data.. > > Thank you for your comment. I know of the code logic which caused > this problem. However, what I want to say here is that this > problem should be fixed as soon as possible. It is a important > regression problem and we've already know the root cause. > > If it's impossible to fix it by releasing 3.16, I consider this > patch should be reverted. > That's not happening. Qgroups have always been broken in one way or another, now with my stuff the accounting is always correct and we don't have a huge performance impact with or without qgroups. We'll fix it but there's no way we're reverting this work. Thanks, Josef