xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [PATCH] xfs: remove XFS_TRANS_RESERVE in collapse range

To: 'Dave Chinner' <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] xfs: remove XFS_TRANS_RESERVE in collapse range
From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2014 08:53:34 +0900
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, 'Brian Foster' <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dlp-filter: Pass
In-reply-to: <20140508220505.GG26353@dastard>
References: <002601cf6aa2$c59cd670$50d68350$@samsung.com> <20140508133637.GB47272@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140508211712.GD26353@dastard> <20140508215115.GA30141@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140508220505.GG26353@dastard>
Thread-index: AQGWLl82jRhcin5ONYXMl+atkuypJQJ91GjjAlLnPWQCocTmBwGkjIoPm2dkpNA=
> 
> On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 05:51:16PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Fri, May 09, 2014 at 07:17:12AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 09:36:37AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 06:49:14PM +0900, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> > > > > There is no need to dip into reserve pool. Reserve pool is used for 
> > > > > much
> > > > > more important things. And xfs_trans_reserve will never return ENOSPC
> > > > > because punch hole is already done. If we get ENOSPC, collapse range
> > > > > will be simply failed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Ashish Sangwan <a.sangwan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c | 3 +--
> > > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c
> > > > > index 296160b..91a43c5 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c
> > > > > @@ -1519,7 +1519,6 @@ xfs_collapse_file_space(
> > > > >
> > > > >       while (!error && !done) {
> > > > >               tp = xfs_trans_alloc(mp, XFS_TRANS_DIOSTRAT);
> > > > > -             tp->t_flags |= XFS_TRANS_RESERVE;
> > > >
> > > > Makes sense.
> > > >
> > > > >               /*
> > > > >                * We would need to reserve permanent block for 
> > > > > transaction.
> > > > >                * This will come into picture when after shifting 
> > > > > extent into
> > > > > @@ -1529,7 +1528,7 @@ xfs_collapse_file_space(
> > > > >               error = xfs_trans_reserve(tp, &M_RES(mp)->tr_write,
> > > > >                               XFS_DIOSTRAT_SPACE_RES(mp, 0), 0);
> > > > >               if (error) {
> > > > > -                     ASSERT(error == ENOSPC || 
> > > > > XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(mp));
> > > > > +                     ASSERT(XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(mp));
> > > >
> > > > The xfs_trans_reserve() call still reserves XFS_DIOSTRAT_SPACE_RES()
> > > > blocks, so therefore I think ENOSPC is still a possibility. The question
> > > > is probably whether or not we need to reserve blocks for this
> > > > transaction.
> > > >
> > > > Making a pass through the code... we have the possibility of deleting a
> > > > btree record in xfs_bmap_shift_extents(). This in turn could potentially
> > > > free a btree block, which frees space. I _think_ this could mean we
> > > > want to keep the block reservation because we update the free space
> > > > trees, but I suppose that could be handled by the freelist...
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps Dave can confirm which direction we should go here..?
> > >
> > > Having collapse range fail with ENOSPC is not an issue - it is being
> > > executed in a context where we can fail safely and return an error
> > > to the user.
> > >
> > > XFS_TRANS_RESERVE is used in places where a failure is unrecoverable
> > > or there is no one to report the error to.  e.g. prevent data loss
> > > due to ENOSPC in unwritten extent conversion during background
> > > buffered write IO completion
> > >
> > > So here there is no need for it at all....
> > >
> >
> > Yeah, dropping XFS_TRANS_RESERVE makes sense. The question I have is
> > whether we should reserve blocks for this transaction (for a potential
> > bmbt block free). If we do reserve blocks, then I assume the ENOSPC
> > assert should stick around.
> 
> Yes, the assert is wrong because xfs_trans_reserve() can
> return ENOMEM as well as ENOSPC. It should just be removed.
Okay, I will remove it on v2 patch. Thanks Dave and Brian!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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