Linux-BTRFS Archive on lore.kernel.org
 help / color / Atom feed
From: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
To: dsterba@suse.cz, Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
	linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] btrfs: add ALLOC_CHUNK_FORCE to the flushing code
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 18:51:34 +0200
Message-ID: <ed6b9681-9378-df3e-4a78-e00baaff04d8@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181211164751.GN23615@twin.jikos.cz>



On 11.12.18 г. 18:47 ч., David Sterba wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 12:08:23PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 3.12.18 г. 17:24 ч., Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> With my change to no longer take into account the global reserve for
>>> metadata allocation chunks we have this side-effect for mixed block
>>> group fs'es where we are no longer allocating enough chunks for the
>>> data/metadata requirements.  To deal with this add a ALLOC_CHUNK_FORCE
>>> step to the flushing state machine.  This will only get used if we've
>>> already made a full loop through the flushing machinery and tried
>>> committing the transaction.  If we have then we can try and force a
>>> chunk allocation since we likely need it to make progress.  This
>>> resolves the issues I was seeing with the mixed bg tests in xfstests
>>> with my previous patch.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
>>
>> Imo this and the previous patch should be squashed into one.
> 
> I don't see why, separate patches also look good to me. One changes the
> logic regarding global reserve and the other fixes behaviour regarding
> mixed block groups.

As far as I understand this deficient behavior is a direct result of the
previous patch. In essnse previous patch fixes something and introduces
new problem which is subsequently fixed by this patch. The way I see it
if both patches are squashed the change log should be :

"I do [explanation of the first change]. However this introduces
[explain bug from patch 2] so fix it by [explain fix from 2nd patch]"


> 
> Possibly, if the fix can be applied first and then the overall logic
> changed, that's still 2 patches but there's no intermediate state with
> the bug. As long as it's not something really disasterous or if the
> "one logical thing per patch" is unnecessarily split to 2 patches, I'm
> willing to take more patches. This is a bit of a grey zone so if I'm
> missing something regarding the split, please let me know.
> 

  reply index

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-12-03 15:24 [PATCH 0/8][V2] Enospc cleanups and fixeS Josef Bacik
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 1/8] btrfs: check if free bgs for commit Josef Bacik
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 2/8] btrfs: dump block_rsv whe dumping space info Josef Bacik
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 3/8] btrfs: don't use global rsv for chunk allocation Josef Bacik
2018-12-11  9:59   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 4/8] btrfs: add ALLOC_CHUNK_FORCE to the flushing code Josef Bacik
2018-12-11 10:08   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-11 16:47     ` David Sterba
2018-12-11 16:51       ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2018-12-11 19:04         ` David Sterba
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 5/8] btrfs: don't enospc all tickets on flush failure Josef Bacik
2018-12-11 14:32   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 6/8] btrfs: loop in inode_rsv_refill Josef Bacik
2018-12-12 16:01   ` Nikolay Borisov
2019-02-06 18:20     ` David Sterba
2019-01-30 16:41   ` David Sterba
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 7/8] btrfs: be more explicit about allowed flush states Josef Bacik
2018-12-11 18:28   ` David Sterba
2018-12-12  8:40   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-03 15:24 ` [PATCH 8/8] btrfs: reserve extra space during evict() Josef Bacik
2018-12-14  8:20   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-13 14:11 ` [PATCH 0/8][V2] Enospc cleanups and fixeS David Sterba
2018-12-13 14:36   ` Nikolay Borisov
2018-12-13 14:45   ` Josef Bacik
2018-12-13 18:17     ` David Sterba
2018-12-13 18:28       ` Josef Bacik
2018-12-13 18:41         ` David Sterba
2019-02-08 16:08 ` David Sterba
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-11-21 19:03 [PATCH 0/8] Enospc cleanups and fixes Josef Bacik
2018-11-21 19:03 ` [PATCH 4/8] btrfs: add ALLOC_CHUNK_FORCE to the flushing code Josef Bacik
2018-11-26 11:28   ` Nikolay Borisov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publically to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=ed6b9681-9378-df3e-4a78-e00baaff04d8@suse.com \
    --to=nborisov@suse.com \
    --cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
    --cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

Linux-BTRFS Archive on lore.kernel.org

Archives are clonable:
	git clone --mirror https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/0 linux-btrfs/git/0.git

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V2 linux-btrfs linux-btrfs/ https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs \
		linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org linux-btrfs@archiver.kernel.org
	public-inbox-index linux-btrfs


Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://nntp.lore.kernel.org/org.kernel.vger.linux-btrfs


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/ public-inbox