On 06/21/2017 04:14 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 6/14/17 11:44 AM, je...@suse.com wrote:
From: Jeff Mahoney <je...@suse.com>
In a heavy write scenario, we can end up with a large number of pinned
bytes. This can translate into (very) premature ENOSPC because pinned
bytes must be accounted for when allowing a reservation but aren't
accounted for when deciding whether to create a new chunk.
This patch adds the accounting to should_alloc_chunk so that we can
create the chunk.
Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <je...@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index cb0b924..d027807 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -4389,7 +4389,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info
*fs_info,
{
struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
- u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved;
+ u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved +
sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
u64 thresh;
if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
Ignore this patch. It certainly allocates chunks more aggressively, but
it means we end up with a ton of metadata chunks even when we don't have
much metadata.
Josef and I pushed this needle back and forth a bunch of times in the
early days. I still think we can allocate a few more chunks than we do
now...
-chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
