* [Cluster-devel] [GFS2 PATCH] gfs2: use reservation rgd, not inode rgd for allocating blocks
[not found] <1186035137.43601549.1529345828415.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
@ 2018-06-18 18:17 ` Bob Peterson
2018-06-20 19:22 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread
From: Bob Peterson @ 2018-06-18 18:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Hi,
Before this patch, function gfs2_alloc_blocks used ip->i_rgd as its
starting rgrp for block allocations. In most cases that's correct.
However, whenever an rlist is used, it can change the i_rgd value
for better performance. Therefore, we should always use the
reservation rgd instead. If we don't, the gfs2_rbm_eq function may
not determine that the rgd for allocations is the same as the
reservation, and therefore, the reservation won't be properly
adjusted.
Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>
---
fs/gfs2/rgrp.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c b/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c
index 9958a926cf72..5f695b8de30c 100644
--- a/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c
+++ b/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c
@@ -2361,7 +2361,7 @@ int gfs2_alloc_blocks(struct gfs2_inode *ip, u64 *bn, unsigned int *nblocks,
{
struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = GFS2_SB(&ip->i_inode);
struct buffer_head *dibh;
- struct gfs2_rbm rbm = { .rgd = ip->i_rgd, };
+ struct gfs2_rbm rbm = { .rgd = ip->i_res.rs_rbm.rgd, };
unsigned int ndata;
u64 block; /* block, within the file system scope */
int error;
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* [Cluster-devel] [GFS2 PATCH] gfs2: use reservation rgd, not inode rgd for allocating blocks
2018-06-18 18:17 ` [Cluster-devel] [GFS2 PATCH] gfs2: use reservation rgd, not inode rgd for allocating blocks Bob Peterson
@ 2018-06-20 19:22 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Andreas Gruenbacher @ 2018-06-20 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Bob,
On 18 June 2018 at 20:17, Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Before this patch, function gfs2_alloc_blocks used ip->i_rgd as its
> starting rgrp for block allocations. In most cases that's correct.
> However, whenever an rlist is used, it can change the i_rgd value
> for better performance. Therefore, we should always use the
> reservation rgd instead. If we don't, the gfs2_rbm_eq function may
> not determine that the rgd for allocations is the same as the
> reservation, and therefore, the reservation won't be properly
> adjusted.
>
> Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/gfs2/rgrp.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c b/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c
> index 9958a926cf72..5f695b8de30c 100644
> --- a/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c
> +++ b/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c
> @@ -2361,7 +2361,7 @@ int gfs2_alloc_blocks(struct gfs2_inode *ip, u64 *bn, unsigned int *nblocks,
> {
> struct gfs2_sbd *sdp = GFS2_SB(&ip->i_inode);
> struct buffer_head *dibh;
> - struct gfs2_rbm rbm = { .rgd = ip->i_rgd, };
> + struct gfs2_rbm rbm = { .rgd = ip->i_res.rs_rbm.rgd, };
> unsigned int ndata;
> u64 block; /* block, within the file system scope */
> int error;
>
I think we can do better than that; see the two patches I've just posted.
Thanks,
Andreas
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2018-06-20 19:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
[not found] <1186035137.43601549.1529345828415.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>
2018-06-18 18:17 ` [Cluster-devel] [GFS2 PATCH] gfs2: use reservation rgd, not inode rgd for allocating blocks Bob Peterson
2018-06-20 19:22 ` Andreas Gruenbacher
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).