xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] xfs: kill hard-coded number 128 for transaction spa

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] xfs: kill hard-coded number 128 for transaction space log reservation
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 11:20:17 +1100
Cc: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <50F9C164.2050806@xxxxxxx>
References: <50EEC680.9040903@xxxxxxxxxx> <50F9C164.2050806@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 03:40:52PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 01/10/13 07:47, Jeff Liu wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Here is the v2 patch set of killing hard-coded number 128 which is used to 
> >indicate
> >the extra log space reservation for almost all of those transactions.
> >
> >In this round, I also tried to convert some transactions to pre-calculate 
> >out the
> >space log reservation from runtime to mount time so that we can make the 
> >code related
> >to xfs_trans_reserve() looks a bit neat and reduce a bit performance 
> >overhead(basically
> >can be ignored. :)) IMHO, which were includes: super block quota flags 
> >changes,
> >quota off/end of quota off, adjust quota limits, quota allocations, log 
> >dummy1,
> >log super block counters, log super block units/fields, as well as set 
> >attributes.
> >
> >
> >Changes of v2 to v1:
> >- use xfs_calc_buf_res() to calulate out the space log reservation per item.
> >
> >Old patches:
> >v1:
> >http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg15499.html
> >
> >Thanks,
> >-Jeff
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >xfs mailing list
> >xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> >http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
> 
> 
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> I did a quick read of the series and it looks good.
> 
> Any reason to have separate constants for:
> 
>  XFS_SYNC_ICSBCOUNT_LOG_RES(mp)
>  XFS_SYNC_ICSBUNIT_LOG_RES(mp)
>  XFS_LOG_DUMMY1_LOG_RES(mp)
> 
> since they are the same value and are all superblock operations.

Right - they can all use the same "XFS_SB_LOG_RES(mp)" reservation.

FWIW, using the notiation "ICSB" is wrong here. ICSB is short for
"in-core superblock" (i.e. in memory) but transactions are used for
modifying the on-disk superblock. They are two separate things, so
let's make sure we get the terminology right. ;)

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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