Re: [PATCH 00/14] Qgroup metadata reservation rework

[Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2141 bytes --]



On 2018年03月26日 22:10, David Sterba wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 08:55:21AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> On 2017年12月13日 05:12, David Sterba wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 03:34:22PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>> The patch is consist of 2 main parts:
>>>> 1) Type based qgroup reservation
>>>>    The original patchset is sent several months ago.
>>>>    Nothing is modified at all, just rebased. And not conflict at all.
>>>>
>>>>    It's from patch 1 to patch 6.
>>>>
>>>> 2) Split meta qgroup reservation into per-trans and prealloc sub types
>>>>    The real work to address metadata underflow.
>>>>    Due to the over-reserve problem, this part is still in RFC state.
>>>>    But the framework should mostly be fine, only needs extra fine-tuning
>>>>    to get more accurate qgroup rsv to avoid too early limit.
>>>>
>>>>    It's from patch 7 to 14.
>>>
>>> I'm going to add the whole patchset to next, the first part has been
>>> there for some time and no test failures were reported. I optimistically
>>> expect that the second part will also be fine.
>>
>> The type based reservation is completely fine, since it doesn't
>> introduce anything new, just a preparation for the incoming meta rework.
>>
>> However I prefer not to push the whole patchset to upstream until
>> over-reserve behavior is solved.
>> Since it breaks quite some test cases with small limit.
> 
> Merging plan for this patchset from last week was to postpone until
> 4.18 due to lack of final testing here. I've tried to run this with
> quotas enabled an fstests that led to warnings in the power failure
> simulation tests.

Which test case?

> 
> As there's going to be one more rc, this gives us one more week to
> decide if its' ok-ish to merge this patch and fix the fallouts during
> the normal cycle.
> 
> Given that this patchset has been in for-next for a long time, I'd do
> the merge now and focus on testing for that patchset as the rest of
> devel patches looks good.
> 
> Please let me know if you have objections.

I'm completely fine with the decision.

Thanks,
Qu

> 


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]