From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009B87CA4 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:28:44 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6EA33AC003 for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:28:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id VxFRGjeYP9gZsFV4 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 28 Jun 2016 06:28:41 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 15:28:39 +0200 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: iomap infrastructure and multipage writes V5 Message-ID: <20160628132839.GA30892@lst.de> References: <1464792297-13185-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20160628002649.GI12670@dastard> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160628002649.GI12670@dastard> 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: Dave Chinner Cc: rpeterso@redhat.com, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:26:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Christoph, it look slike there's an ENOSPC+ENOMEM behavioural regression here. > generic/224 on my 1p/1GB RAM VM using a 1k lock size filesystem has > significantly different behaviour once ENOSPC is hit withi this patchset. Works fine on my 1k test setup with 4 CPUs and 2GB RAM. 1 CPU and 1GB RAM runs into the OOM killer, although I haven't checked if that was the case with the old code as well. I'll look into this more later today or tomorrow. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs