Re: [PATCH v3 0/3] Print when ENOSPC due to lack of inodes.

Dave Chinner
2012-10-28T22:04:02Z

On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 08:18:59AM -0500, Rich Johnston wrote:
> On 10/24/2012 03:56 PM, Raghavendra Prabhu wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >Checking back on this, whether it has been reviewed and if so, any comments.
> >
> >On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 at 12:26 PM, <raghu.prabhu13@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>From: Raghavendra D Prabhu <rprabhu@wnohang.net>
> >>
> >>Currently, when there are no free inodes left / free space to allocate them (usually
> >>without inode64), there is no indication anywhere of this case, making it harder
> >>to diagnose this case.
> >>
> >>Hence, this series prints the causes/reasons to kernel log in a ratelimited
> >>manner, when such a situation arises.
> >>
> >>Regarding why it is printed at callee location instead at caller, it gives
> >>greater granularity in expressing the precise reason and give more details, and
> >>also some along the path are not ENOSPC (such in xfs_ialloc where ialloc_context is not NULL but
> >>ino is) along with the fact that it (xfs_ialloc) is called at multiple sites, so to avoid duplication.
> >>
> >>Version 1: Initial series.
> >>Version 2: Added ratelimited printing to xfs_message and used that.
> >>Version 3: Kept the logic intact in few places, fixed the column requirement.
> >>
> >>Raghavendra D Prabhu (3):
> >> xfs: Add ratelimited printk for different alert levels
> >> xfs: Print error when xfs_ialloc_ag_select fails to find continuous
> >> free space.
> >> xfs: Print error when unable to allocate inodes or out of free
> >> inodes.
> >>
> >> fs/xfs/xfs_ialloc.c | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >> fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h | 1 +
> >> fs/xfs/xfs_message.h | 26 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> 3 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>--
> >>1.7.12.1
> >>
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xfs mailing list
> >xfs@oss.sgi.com
> >http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> >
>
> Ben,
>
> When you have a chance can you pull this series in. I have tested
> it and it looks good.

No, not yet. It doesn't address the comments I made in a previous
iteration.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com