On Wed, Nov 29, 2017 at 09:26:37AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 09:04:59AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 28, 2017 at 10:27:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 03:24:34PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > STATIC uint
> > > > @@ -415,8 +414,8 @@ __xfs_calc_create_reservation(
> > > > * For icreate we can allocate some inodes giving:
> > > > * the agi and agf of the ag getting the new inodes: 2 * sectorsize
> > > > * the superblock for the nlink flag: sector size
> > > > - * the inode btree: max depth * blocksize
> > > > * the allocation btrees: 2 trees * (max depth - 1) * block size
> > > > + * the inobt (record insertion)
> > > > * the finobt (record insertion)
> > > > */
> > > > STATIC uint
> > > > @@ -425,10 +424,10 @@ xfs_calc_icreate_resv_alloc(
> > > > {
> > > > return xfs_calc_buf_res(2, mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize) +
> > > > mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize +
> > > > - xfs_calc_buf_res(mp->m_in_maxlevels, XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 1)) +
> > > > xfs_calc_buf_res(xfs_allocfree_log_count(mp, 1),
> > > > XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 1)) +
> > > > - xfs_calc_finobt_res(mp, 0, 0);
> > > > + xfs_calc_inobt_res(mp) +
> > > > + xfs_calc_finobt_res(mp);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > return xfs_calc_buf_res(2, mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize) +
> > > mp->m_sb.sb_sectsize +
> > > xfs_calc_inode_chunk_res(mp, false) +
> > > xfs_calc_inobt_res(mp) +
> > > xfs_calc_finobt_res(mp);
> > >
> >
> > The icreate reservation doesn't currently include m_ialloc_blks at all.
> > The helper, as defined above, adds a reservation for associated headers.
> > Is that really necessary? My understanding is that icreate doesn't log
> > the inode chunk.
>
> Right, it uses ordered buffers to avoid needing to log them.
>
> > I suppose we could get around that by tweaking the
> > parameter to take the size to reserve instead of a bool and pass a dummy
> > value (i.e., negative) to avoid logging the chunk at all. A little ugly,
> > but I could live with it.
>
> I don't think that having an extra few hundred bytes of overhead in
> the reservation is going to be noticable by anyone. I'd just
> ignore the problem (as I did when suggesting this).
>
I'm not as concerned with the overhead as much as I want to make sure
the intent of the changes is clearly documented. The refactoring
proposed in the other thread factors this out more cleanly than I
originally anticipated, so it's a moot point now.
> > > > STATIC uint
> > > > @@ -494,9 +493,14 @@ xfs_calc_symlink_reservation(
> > > > * the agi hash list and counters: sector size
> > > > * the on disk inode before ours in the agi hash list: inode cluster size
> > > > * the inode chunk is marked stale (headers only)
> > > > - * the inode btree: max depth * blocksize
> > > > - * the allocation btrees: 2 trees * (max depth - 1) * block size
> > > > + * the inode btree
> > > > * the finobt (record insertion, removal or modification)
> > > > + *
> > > > + * Note that the allocfree res. for the inode chunk itself is not included
> > > > + * because the extent free occurs after a transaction roll. We could take the
> > > > + * maximum of the pre/post roll operations, but the pre-roll reservation already
> > > > + * includes at least one allocfree res. for the inobt and is thus guaranteed to
> > > > + * be larger.
> > > > */
> > > > STATIC uint
> > > > xfs_calc_ifree_reservation(
> > > > @@ -508,10 +512,8 @@ xfs_calc_ifree_reservation(
> > > > xfs_calc_iunlink_remove_reservation(mp) +
> > > > xfs_calc_buf_res(1, 0) +
> > > > xfs_calc_buf_res(mp->m_ialloc_blks, 0) +
> > > > - xfs_calc_buf_res(mp->m_in_maxlevels, XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 1)) +
> > > > - xfs_calc_buf_res(xfs_allocfree_log_count(mp, 1),
> > > > - XFS_FSB_TO_B(mp, 1)) +
> > > > - xfs_calc_finobt_res(mp, 0, 1);
> > > > + xfs_calc_inobt_res(mp) +
> > > > + xfs_calc_finobt_res(mp);
> > > > }
> > >
> > > .....
> > > xfs_calc_iunlink_remove_reservation(mp) +
> > > xfs_calc_buf_res(1, 0) +
> > > xfs_calc_inode_chunk_res(mp, false) +
> > > xfs_calc_inobt_res(mp) +
> > > xfs_calc_finobt_res(mp);
> > >
> >
> > This covers the inode chunk invalidation, but also adds the allocfree
> > res. for the chunk free where we technically don't need it (because the
> > free is deferred, re: the comment above).
> >
> > I guess I'm fine with just adding that one, but I'd update the comment
> > above to point out that it's technically unecessary. Hm?
>
> *nod*
>
> Though with sparse inodes, we might be freeing multiple extents,
> right? which means we probably need all the allocfree reservations
> we can get....
>
Yep good point, I suppose that is possible.
Brian
> > > This seems to make more sense to me - it's clear what the individual
> > > components of the reservation are, and we can ensure that the
> > > individual components have the necessary reservation independently
> > > of the overall reservations that need them.
> > >
> >
> > I agree in principle. I think the underlying helpers (and pushing down
> > some of the associated documentation) help clearly declare the intent of
> > the reservations, particularly when we include multiple factors of a
> > single reservation and/or have situations where we don't technically
> > have a definition of worst case, but want to define something logically
> > reasonable (like the whole allocfree per inode tree thing).
>
> Yup, that's pretty much what I was thinking.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> 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
--
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
