From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Bob Peterson Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:01:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Cluster-devel] [GFS2 PATCH] [TRY #2] GFS2: Implement a "bitmap has no extents longer than X" scheme In-Reply-To: <1383823945.2712.4.camel@menhir> References: <103368646.17689932.1383753576352.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <1383823945.2712.4.camel@menhir> Message-ID: <131364899.20160689.1384178482510.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message ----- | Hi, | | On Wed, 2013-11-06 at 10:59 -0500, Bob Peterson wrote: | > Hi, | > | > This is a slightly revised version of a patch I recently sent out: | > | > Before this patch, we used a bit, GBF_FULL, to determine when a bitmap | > was full. With the preceding patch, we started accepting block | > reservations smaller than the ideal size, which requires a lot more | > parsing of the bitmaps. To reduce the amount of bitmap searching, this | > patch implements a scheme whereby each rgrp keeps track of the point | > at this multi-block reservations will fail. | > | The first two patches look good. However this one I'm still not so keen | on. I'd much prefer if we can avoid dropping the GBF_FULL support at | bitmap level if the new test is at rgrp level. It doesn't look like that | is too tricky to achieve either - all we need to do is to not remove the | GBF_FULL support since there doesn't appear to be any conflict between | the two mechanisms. | | The net result is a diffstat that looks like this: | | [root at chywoon linux-2.6]# diffstat -p1 ./patch3.diff | fs/gfs2/incore.h | 1 + | fs/gfs2/lops.c | 1 + | fs/gfs2/rgrp.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ | 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) | | as opposed to your patch which looks like: | | [root at chywoon linux-2.6]# diffstat -p1 ../bob-a-3.mbox | fs/gfs2/incore.h | 2 +- | fs/gfs2/lops.c | 2 +- | fs/gfs2/rgrp.c | 53 | ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- | 3 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-) | | So there would be fewer changes overall. I've given this a quick spin, | and it hasn't broken yet, so let me know what you think, | | Steve. Hi Steve, I've done a fair amount of testing on your new patch that does not remove the GBF_FULL flag, and it seems to work fine. Go ahead and use that one instead of mine. IOW: ACK Regards, Bob Peterson Red Hat File Systems