| Message ID | 20240327110318.2776850-13-hch@lst.de (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [01/13] xfs: make XFS_TRANS_LOWMODE match the other XFS_TRANS_ definitions | expand |
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > When xfs_bmap_del_extent_delay has to split an indirect block it tries > to steal blocks from the the part that gets unmapped to increase the > indirect block reservation that now needs to cover for two extents > instead of one. > > This works perfectly fine on the data device, where the data and > indirect blocks come from the same pool. It has no chance of working > when the inode sits on the RT device. To support re-enabling delalloc > for inodes on the RT device, make this behavior conditional on not > beeing for rt extents. being > Note that split of delalloc extents should only happen on writeback > failure, as for other kinds of hole punching we first write back all > data and thus convert the delalloc reservations covering the hole to > a real allocation. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> With that one spelling fix, Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@kernel.org> --D > --- > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 7 ++++++- > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c > index 9d0b7caa9a036c..ef34738fb0fedd 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c > @@ -4981,9 +4981,14 @@ xfs_bmap_del_extent_delay( > /* > * Steal as many blocks as we can to try and satisfy the worst > * case indlen for both new extents. > + * > + * However, we can't just steal reservations from the data > + * blocks if this is an RT inodes as the data and metadata > + * blocks come from different pools. We'll have to live with > + * under-filled indirect reservation in this case. > */ > da_new = got_indlen + new_indlen; > - if (da_new > da_old) { > + if (da_new > da_old && !isrt) { > stolen = XFS_FILBLKS_MIN(da_new - da_old, > del->br_blockcount); > da_old += stolen; > -- > 2.39.2 > >
On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 12:03:17PM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > When xfs_bmap_del_extent_delay has to split an indirect block it tries > to steal blocks from the the part that gets unmapped to increase the > indirect block reservation that now needs to cover for two extents > instead of one. > > This works perfectly fine on the data device, where the data and > indirect blocks come from the same pool. It has no chance of working > when the inode sits on the RT device. To support re-enabling delalloc > for inodes on the RT device, make this behavior conditional on not > beeing for rt extents. > > Note that split of delalloc extents should only happen on writeback > failure, as for other kinds of hole punching we first write back all > data and thus convert the delalloc reservations covering the hole to > a real allocation. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> Looks good. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c index 9d0b7caa9a036c..ef34738fb0fedd 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c @@ -4981,9 +4981,14 @@ xfs_bmap_del_extent_delay( /* * Steal as many blocks as we can to try and satisfy the worst * case indlen for both new extents. + * + * However, we can't just steal reservations from the data + * blocks if this is an RT inodes as the data and metadata + * blocks come from different pools. We'll have to live with + * under-filled indirect reservation in this case. */ da_new = got_indlen + new_indlen; - if (da_new > da_old) { + if (da_new > da_old && !isrt) { stolen = XFS_FILBLKS_MIN(da_new - da_old, del->br_blockcount); da_old += stolen;
When xfs_bmap_del_extent_delay has to split an indirect block it tries to steal blocks from the the part that gets unmapped to increase the indirect block reservation that now needs to cover for two extents instead of one. This works perfectly fine on the data device, where the data and indirect blocks come from the same pool. It has no chance of working when the inode sits on the RT device. To support re-enabling delalloc for inodes on the RT device, make this behavior conditional on not beeing for rt extents. Note that split of delalloc extents should only happen on writeback failure, as for other kinds of hole punching we first write back all data and thus convert the delalloc reservations covering the hole to a real allocation. Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de> --- fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_bmap.c | 7 ++++++- 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)