On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 08:05:25AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > But doesn't that mean this wouldn't be a new problem introduced by such > a change? It would make the existing problem at lot easier to hit I think. > transaction. That being said, I'm not following your thought wrt to this > particular situation. Are you suggesting that we not defer the reflink > adjustment in particular unmap cases, or that we just limit the number > of extent unmaps per-tp based on crossing an AG boundary, or something > else entirely? To me it seems like we should try to do the extent count adjustments in the current transaction for a given extent if we can, but give me a little more time to think how to best do that. I'm travelling at the moment and don't have much quiet time to actually engage my brain. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
