* [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).