From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:25:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [192.26.58.22]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m8U3OvrP032326 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:24:57 -0700 Message-ID: <48E19C59.7090303@sgi.com> Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:26:17 +1000 From: Mark Goodwin Reply-To: markgw@sgi.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool References: <48E097B5.3010906@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <48E097B5.3010906@sgi.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: lachlan@sgi.com Cc: xfs-dev , xfs-oss Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > The current default size of the reserved blocks pool is easy to deplete > with certain workloads, in particular workloads that do lots of concurrent > delayed allocation extent conversions. If enough transactions are running > in parallel and the entire pool is consumed then subsequent calls to > xfs_trans_reserve() will fail with ENOSPC. Also add a rate limited > warning so we know if this starts happening again. > Should we also change the semantics of the XFS_SET_RESBLKS ioctl so that the passed in value is the minimum required by the caller, i.e. silently succeed if the current value is more than that? Cheers -- Mark