On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:26:49AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > Christoph, it look slike there's an ENOSPC+ENOMEM behavioural regression here. > generic/224 on my 1p/1GB RAM VM using a 1k lock size filesystem has > significantly different behaviour once ENOSPC is hit withi this patchset. Works fine on my 1k test setup with 4 CPUs and 2GB RAM. 1 CPU and 1GB RAM runs into the OOM killer, although I haven't checked if that was the case with the old code as well. I'll look into this more later today or tomorrow. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
