On 09/05/2013 08:17 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Thu, Sep 05, 2013 at 12:18:31PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> On 09/04/2013 09:40 PM, Dave Chinner wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 03, 2013 at 02:25:04PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >>>> An ifree data block reservation can fail with ENOSPC. Flush inodes >>>> to try and free up space or attempt without a data block >>>> reservation to avoid failing out of xfs_inactive(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> >>>> --- >>>> fs/xfs/xfs_inode.c | 11 +++++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) >>>> ... > >> Subsequent to avoiding that, I >> believe there were inconsistent fs issues called out due to the unlinked >> lists being populated after umount. > > That sounds like a recovery failure, not so much an ENOSPC failure. > i.e. that recovery only looks at the log to see if it's clean, and > only recovers unlinked lists if it's dirty. There is the > *possibility* of having a clean log with inodes on the unlinked > list, and log recovery doesn't run the unlinked list processing in > that case. > Interesting, I'll have a closer look when I rework the inactive transaction reservation bits. Thanks. Brian > This is one of the issues we'll need to fix for O_TMPFILE support > as it will actively use inodes on unlinked list for potentially long > periods of time. > >> Taking a further look, I missed the XFS_TRANS_RESERVE flag and whole >> m_resblks mechanism. I'll take a closer look at that and see if that >> works to resolve the problem instead of the flush. > > It should - the only time it won't is if we exhaust the pool, but > that doesn't happen in normal ENOSPC situations and any blocks we do > end up freeing will immediately refill the reserve pool... > > Cheers, > > Dave. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
