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
> 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....