On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 04:58:26PM -0400, John Stoffel wrote: > >>>>> "Alan" == Alan Huang <[email protected]> writes: > > > Now there are 16 journal buffers, 8 is too small to be enough. > > Signed-off-by: Alan Huang <[email protected]> > > --- > > fs/bcachefs/recovery.c | 2 +- > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > diff --git a/fs/bcachefs/recovery.c b/fs/bcachefs/recovery.c > > index 71c786cdb192..a6e26733854d 100644 > > --- a/fs/bcachefs/recovery.c > > +++ b/fs/bcachefs/recovery.c > > @@ -899,7 +899,7 @@ int bch2_fs_recovery(struct bch_fs *c) > > * journal sequence numbers: > > */ > > if (!c->sb.clean) > > - journal_seq += 8; > > + journal_seq += JOURNAL_BUF_NR * 4; > > Instead of magic numbers, could you put in a define with an > explanation of how you arrived at this number? Just to document the > assumptions better? > > John
The * 4 is a fudge factor. But actually, I was giving this more thought and I don't think we have the correct number. The real bound is "number of unflushed journal entries that might have been allocated, and have other items (btree nodes) referring to that sequence number, but which don't hit because beacuse they weren't flushed". And we don't have an actual bound on that.
