[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs: Increase the default size of the reserved blocks po

To: Alex Elder <aelder@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs: Increase the default size of the reserved blocks pool
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2010 10:26:24 +1100
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1267803953.2478.13.camel@doink>
References: <1267667185-7736-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1267667185-7736-4-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1267803953.2478.13.camel@doink>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 09:45:53AM -0600, Alex Elder wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-04 at 12:46 +1100, Dave Chinner 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.
> > 
> > This is an updated version of an old patch from Lachlan McIlroy.
> Looks good.  The comment and code rearrangements are an
> improvement.
> I have also reviewed the other two patches in the series
> (including the updated patch 2) and they too look good.
> > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>          So is it got to be fromorbit or redhat?
>          (You used both in this series.)

What each individual patch says.

It depends on the history of the patch to what the sign-off I'll use
on it. This one I pulled from a patch series I had locally that
hadn't been touched for months (i.e. not new work). I simply updated
it for the recent resblks changes....


Dave Chinner

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>