From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:60579 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964873AbdD0HfW (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2017 03:35:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2017 00:35:19 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfs: try to avoid blowing out the transaction reservation when bunmaping a shared extent Message-ID: <20170427073519.GA18392@infradead.org> References: <20170425020954.GV23371@birch.djwong.org> <20170426135912.GB42456@bfoster.bfoster> <20170426213731.GC23371@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170426213731.GC23371@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Brian Foster , xfs , Christoph Hellwig On Wed, Apr 26, 2017 at 02:37:31PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > That's so shockingly obvious I don't know why it didn't occur to me. > Uh, I'll go give that a try with that horrid generic/931 testcase that > I sent to the list a couple of weeks ago. :) I like the idea too. But once thing to remember is that freeing blocks from two AG in the same transaction is deadlock prone as the other thread shows. I've been doing some work to mitigate that, but I guess I'll just wait for your new patch and will rebase on top of that.