From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from bombadil.infradead.org ([65.50.211.133]:48786 "EHLO bombadil.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752493AbdEDL7p (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 May 2017 07:59:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 May 2017 04:59:43 -0700 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] xfs: try to avoid blowing out the transaction reservation when bunmaping a shared extent Message-ID: <20170504115943.GC22052@infradead.org> References: <20170425020954.GV23371@birch.djwong.org> <20170426135912.GB42456@bfoster.bfoster> <20170426213731.GC23371@birch.djwong.org> <20170427073519.GA18392@infradead.org> <20170428194032.GF22884@birch.djwong.org> <20170502080023.GA17675@infradead.org> <20170502120523.GA6975@bfoster.bfoster> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170502120523.GA6975@bfoster.bfoster> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: Brian Foster Cc: Christoph Hellwig , "Darrick J. Wong" , xfs On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 08:05:25AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > But doesn't that mean this wouldn't be a new problem introduced by such > a change? It would make the existing problem at lot easier to hit I think. > transaction. That being said, I'm not following your thought wrt to this > particular situation. Are you suggesting that we not defer the reflink > adjustment in particular unmap cases, or that we just limit the number > of extent unmaps per-tp based on crossing an AG boundary, or something > else entirely? To me it seems like we should try to do the extent count adjustments in the current transaction for a given extent if we can, but give me a little more time to think how to best do that. I'm travelling at the moment and don't have much quiet time to actually engage my brain.