From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39344 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750829AbdAHQHm (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Jan 2017 11:07:42 -0500 Date: Sun, 8 Jan 2017 11:07:40 -0500 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: bump up reserved blocks in xfs_alloc_set_aside Message-ID: <20170108160738.GA62847@bfoster.bfoster> References: <1482436822-31546-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1482436822-31546-2-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20170104143350.GA41989@bfoster.bfoster> <20170108103028.GA26451@lst.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170108103028.GA26451@lst.de> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, eguan@redhat.com, darrick.wong@oracle.com On Sun, Jan 08, 2017 at 11:30:28AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Wed, Jan 04, 2017 at 09:33:51AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > Presumably this patch addresses the potential deadlock issues from the > > previous version, but the commit log description makes no mention of it > > whatsoever. While the code seems fine, I think the commit log > > description needs more information wrt to that situation and the > > relationship/dependency with minleft. > > Ok. > > > The comment above xfs_alloc_set_aside() already touches on the writeback > > situation, but why 4 blocks per ag? Wasn't the intent to use > > worst_indlen() since that's the base for minleft? > > No, I've given up on that. worst_indlen deals with the fact that > for converting a delayed extent of a given length we might need multiple > real extents, possible in different AGs. > > This version of the series keeps the previous minleft that is for just > allocating a single extent in the AG - the callers will handle "short" > returns from xfs_bmapi_write and just start a new allocation. And > except for a corner case in the large directory block allocation code > these are in a new / rolled over transaction. Fixing the latter also > is on my todo list, but it's another big issue that so far hasn't > trigger in practive, so I'd like to keep it in a separate series. > Ok, anything you can include in the commit log and/or comment that helps clarify that is appreciated. Brian > > Also, it looks like this causes a regression in xfs/004. On a quick > > look, we might just need a test update however... > > Yes. Hard to do in a series for the kernel, though :) > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html