On 6/14/17 11:44 AM, je...@suse.com wrote:
> From: Jeff Mahoney <je...@suse.com>
>
> In a heavy write scenario, we can end up with a large number of pinned
> bytes. This can translate into (very) premature ENOSPC because pinned
> bytes must be accounted for when allowing a reservation but aren't
> accounted for when deciding whether to create a new chunk.
>
> This patch adds the accounting to should_alloc_chunk so that we can
> create the chunk.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Mahoney <je...@suse.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> index cb0b924..d027807 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
> @@ -4389,7 +4389,7 @@ static int should_alloc_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info
> *fs_info,
> {
> struct btrfs_block_rsv *global_rsv = &fs_info->global_block_rsv;
> u64 num_bytes = sinfo->total_bytes - sinfo->bytes_readonly;
> - u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved;
> + u64 num_allocated = sinfo->bytes_used + sinfo->bytes_reserved +
> sinfo->bytes_pinned + sinfo->bytes_may_use;
> u64 thresh;
>
> if (force == CHUNK_ALLOC_FORCE)
> Ignore this patch. It certainly allocates chunks more aggressively, but it means we end up with a ton of metadata chunks even when we don't have much metadata. -Jeff -- Jeff Mahoney SUSE Labs
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
