xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 58/71] xfs: garbage collect old cowextsz reservations

To: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 58/71] xfs: garbage collect old cowextsz reservations
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 11:50:21 -0700
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20160926215209.GE14092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <147216791538.867.12413509832420924168.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <147216829394.867.16281333542262043955.stgit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160924194234.GA1878@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160926215209.GE14092@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 02:52:09PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> The two functions /could/ be merged but I'm hesitant to combine them
> because they run as different workqueue items.
> 
> Setting speculative_cow_prealloc_lifetime to a (much) higher value than
> speculative_prealloc_lifetime has been useful for combatting CoW
> fragmentation on VM hosts where the VMs experience bursty write
> behaviors and we can keep the utilization ratios low enough that we
> don't start to run out of space.  IOWs, it benefits us to keep the CoW
> fork reservations around for as long as we can unless we run out of
> blocks or hit inode reclaim.

Ok, so there is a good use case for it.  It just felt to me like
there was a little bit too much duplication, that's why I asked.

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