From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A17F7CA6 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 18:21:42 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47B8C304039 for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 16:21:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail06.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.129]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id p61PSXmxyhP0imyU for ; Sat, 13 Feb 2016 16:21:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:21:35 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: block allocations for the refcount btree Message-ID: <20160214002135.GG14668@dastard> References: <20160210093011.GA19147@infradead.org> <20160210095010.GC23904@birch.djwong.org> <20160210190738.GA13051@infradead.org> <20160210214058.GN14668@dastard> <20160212191046.GA28421@infradead.org> <20160213023310.GC14668@dastard> <20160213074827.GA11543@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160213074827.GA11543@infradead.org> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, "Darrick J. Wong" On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 11:48:27PM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 01:33:10PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > allocate an extent (or rather just a single block) in xfs_alloc_ag_vextent > > > as called from xfs_refcountbt_alloc_block. The reservation helps us to > > > ensure this block is always available, but we still need to account for > > > that in xfs_trans_reserve(), which we currently don't do for itruncate > > > transactions. > > > > Ok, so we may have two different issues with a similar failure > > symptom. As it is, I don't think this is a show stopper - we're > > expecting to find these sorts of issues as we go along (hence the > > experimental tag on the feature) and I think, at this point, getting > > review and an initial merge done is more important... > > This triggers 100% reproducible over NFS, and as outlined I'm > also pretty sure about the root cause. I don't think this is something > to be ignored. I didn't say we should to ignore it - I simply stated my priority was getting the code reviewed and merged. That doesn't stop you or Darrick from working on a fix - if that happens after the initial merge, we've still got the whole -rc cycle to find and fix issues like this. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs