From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o25NP0Qp030782 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 17:25:01 -0600 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id D248313FE347 for ; Fri, 5 Mar 2010 15:26:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail19.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.104]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id krIx15d0sTu18YA7 for ; Fri, 05 Mar 2010 15:26:27 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:26:24 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs: Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool Message-ID: <20100305232624.GA28189@discord.disaster> References: <1267667185-7736-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1267667185-7736-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1267803953.2478.13.camel@doink> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1267803953.2478.13.camel@doink> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Alex Elder Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:45:53AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote: > On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 12:46 +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > The current default size of the reserved blocks pool is easy to deplete > > with certain workloads, in particular workloads that do lots of concurrent > > delayed allocation extent conversions. If enough transactions are running > > in parallel and the entire pool is consumed then subsequent calls to > > xfs_trans_reserve() will fail with ENOSPC. Also add a rate limited > > warning so we know if this starts happening again. > > > > This is an updated version of an old patch from Lachlan McIlroy. > > Looks good. The comment and code rearrangements are an > improvement. > > I have also reviewed the other two patches in the series > (including the updated patch 2) and they too look good. > > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > So is it got to be fromorbit or redhat? > (You used both in this series.) What each individual patch says. It depends on the history of the patch to what the sign-off I'll use on it. This one I pulled from a patch series I had locally that hadn't been touched for months (i.e. not new work). I simply updated it for the recent resblks changes.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs