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 14:56:28 -0600
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <5307B9C2.4000908@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> <5307AD41.1000807@xxxxxxxxxxx> <5307B9C2.4000908@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0
On 2/21/14, 2:40 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 02/21/14 13:47, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> 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....
> 
> I was thinking of the output of uname(1). Probably easier to filter the 
> results in the test on the OS version rather than have separate golden 
> outputs.

The behavior depends on the xfsprogs version, though, not the kernel version.

I .... guess we could do mkfs.xfs -V and split on that.

I do want to make sure it's all intentional though, first.

-Eric

> --Mark.
> 

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