On 01/22/2013 10:33 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 01/22/13 00:52, Jeff Liu wrote: >> On 01/19/2013 08:20 AM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 03:40:52PM -0600, Mark Tinguely wrote: >>>> On 01/10/13 07:47, Jeff Liu wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> Here is the v2 patch set of killing hard-coded number 128 which is used to indicate >>>>> the extra log space reservation for almost all of those transactions. >>>>> >>>>> In this round, I also tried to convert some transactions to pre-calculate out the >>>>> space log reservation from runtime to mount time so that we can make the code related >>>>> to xfs_trans_reserve() looks a bit neat and reduce a bit performance overhead(basically >>>>> can be ignored. :)) IMHO, which were includes: super block quota flags changes, >>>>> quota off/end of quota off, adjust quota limits, quota allocations, log dummy1, >>>>> log super block counters, log super block units/fields, as well as set attributes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Changes of v2 to v1: >>>>> - use xfs_calc_buf_res() to calulate out the space log reservation per item. >>>>> >>>>> Old patches: >>>>> v1: >>>>> http://www.spinics.net/lists/xfs/msg15499.html >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> -Jeff >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> xfs mailing list >>>>> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Jeff, >>>> >>>> I did a quick read of the series and it looks good. >>>> >>>> Any reason to have separate constants for: >>>> >>>> XFS_SYNC_ICSBCOUNT_LOG_RES(mp) >>>> XFS_SYNC_ICSBUNIT_LOG_RES(mp) >>>> XFS_LOG_DUMMY1_LOG_RES(mp) >>>> >>>> since they are the same value and are all superblock operations. >>> >>> Right - they can all use the same "XFS_SB_LOG_RES(mp)" reservation. >>> >>> FWIW, using the notiation "ICSB" is wrong here. ICSB is short for >>> "in-core superblock" (i.e. in memory) but transactions are used for >>> modifying the on-disk superblock. They are two separate things, so >>> let's make sure we get the terminology right. ;) >> Since those transactions are used for changing the on-disk super block, >> how about naming this transaction to XFS_UPDATE_SB_LOG_RES(mp) and >> introduce a corresponding mp->m_reservations.tr_updatesb? >> Does this sounds more meaningful? >> >> Thanks, >> -Jeff >> > > I like the simpler "XFS_SB_LOG_RES(mp)". It follows the existing names. That is ok, then. Thanks, -Jeff _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
