On Sat 31-10-20 13:05:10, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> If inode gets evicted due to memory pressure, we have to remove it
> from the fast commit list. However, that inode may have uncommitted
> changes that fast commits will lose. So, just fall back to full
> commits in this case. Also, rename the fast commit ineligiblity reason
> from "EXT4_FC_REASON_MEM" to "EXT4_FC_REASON_MEM_CRUNCH" for better
> expression.
>
> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@xxxxxxxxx>
...
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.h b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.h
> index 06907d485989..cde86747faf8 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.h
> +++ b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.h
> @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ enum {
> EXT4_FC_REASON_XATTR = 0,
> EXT4_FC_REASON_CROSS_RENAME,
> EXT4_FC_REASON_JOURNAL_FLAG_CHANGE,
> - EXT4_FC_REASON_MEM,
> + EXT4_FC_REASON_MEM_CRUNCH,
Well MEM_CRUNCH doesn't really sound more understandable to me :). I'd
rather call it MEM_RECLAIM or ENOMEM or something like that...
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/inode.c b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> index b96a18679a27..52ff71236290 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/inode.c
> @@ -327,6 +327,7 @@ void ext4_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> ext4_xattr_inode_array_free(ea_inode_array);
> return;
> no_delete:
> + ext4_fc_mark_ineligible(inode->i_sb, EXT4_FC_REASON_MEM_CRUNCH);
> ext4_clear_inode(inode); /* We must guarantee clearing of inode... */
> }
This will make fs ineligible on every inode reclaim. Even if the inode was
clean, not part of any FC. I guess this is too aggressive...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
