On 02/22/13 12:08, Brian Foster wrote:
On 02/22/2013 12:07 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 02/20/13 09:10, Brian Foster wrote:
The majority of xfs_iomap_prealloc_size() executes within the
check for lack of default I/O size. Reverse the logic to remove the
Signed-off-by: Brian Foster<bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Ben Myers<bpm@xxxxxxx>
fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c | 63
1 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_iomap.c
index 912d83d..d914419 100644
@@ -381,42 +381,43 @@ xfs_iomap_prealloc_size(
xfs_fsblock_t alloc_blocks = 0;
+ int shift = 0;
+ int64_t freesp;
+ freesp = mp->m_sb.sb_fdblocks;
+ * If we are still trying to allocate more space than is
+ * available, squash the prealloc hard. This can happen if we
+ * have a large file on a small filesystem and the above
+ * lowspace thresholds are smaller than MAXEXTLEN.
+ while (alloc_blocks>= freesp)
+ alloc_blocks>>= 4;
Hi Brian, I am looking at your speculative preallocation quota
I know this code is from commit 4d559a3b. would this not be bad of
freesp == 0?
Thanks. Hmm, I guess if freesp is 0 we'd hit an infinite loop
(irrespective of this patchset). We could change the comparison to>,
but I think the following would be more clear:
while (alloc_blocks&& alloc_blocks>= freesp)
Thoughts? I'll send out a one-liner to bat around if that looks
reasonable. Good catch.
That looks reasonable to me.