xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 46/55] xfs: Add xfs_log_rlimit.c

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 46/55] xfs: Add xfs_log_rlimit.c
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 2014 13:47:13 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5252BB9A.2040705@xxxxxxx>
References: <1378332359-14737-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1378332359-14737-47-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5251A450.4000407@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5252125B.2040300@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5252BB9A.2040705@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
On 10/7/13, 8:48 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 10/06/13 20:46, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 10/6/13 12:56 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>> On 9/4/13 5:05 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>> From: Jie Liu<jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>
>>>>> Add source files for xfs_log_rlimit.c The new file is used for log
>>>>> size calculations and validation shared with userspace.
>>>>>
>>>>> [dchinner: xfs_log_calc_max_attrsetm_res() does not modify the
>>>>> tr_attrsetm reservation, just calculates the maximum. ]
>>>>>
>>>>> [dchinner: rework loop in xfs_log_get_max_trans_res() ]
>>>>>
>>>>> [dchinner: implement xfs_log_calc_unit_res() in util.c to give mkfs
>>>>> a worse case calculation of the log size needed. ]
>>> 2 things:
>>>
>>> Ben, seems like your workflow lost the:
>>>
>>> From: Jie Liu<jeff.liu@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> at the top - in git, the author is listed as Dave in git.
>>>
>>> (Although those [parentheticals] were pretty fundamental changes,
>>> something I just gave Rich a hard time for)  ;)
>>>
>>> Also, this now breaks xfstest xfs/216 as a result of the mkfs changes.
>>> What are the plans for that?
>>
>> Sorry, to be clear, it breaks that test (and others, pretty sure)
>> because the log sizes for small filesystems are significantly bigger:
>>
>> -fssize=1g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=2560, 
>> version=2
>> +fssize=1g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=12800, 
>> version=2
>>
>> -fssize=2g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=2560, 
>> version=2
>> +fssize=2g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=12800, 
>> version=2
>>
>> -fssize=4g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=2560, 
>> version=2
>> +fssize=4g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=12800, 
>> version=2
>>
>> -fssize=8g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=2560, 
>> version=2
>> +fssize=8g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=12800, 
>> version=2
>>
>> -fssize=16g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=2560, 
>> version=2
>> +fssize=16g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=12800, 
>> version=2
>>
>> -fssize=32g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=4096, 
>> version=2
>> +fssize=32g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=12800, 
>> version=2
>>
>> -fssize=64g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=8192, 
>> version=2
>> +fssize=64g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=12800, 
>> version=2
>>
>>   fssize=128g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=16384, 
>> version=2
>>   fssize=256g log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=32768, 
>> version=2
>>
>> -Eric
> 
> 
> Separate outputs for different versions of the OS version like we do for 
> 16/32 bit tests' output?

I'm not sure what we'd switch on....

Dave, a) was the change intentional (I think it was) and b)
any suggestion for handling this test?

-Eric

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