On Mon, 3 Dec 2018 at 15:32, Bob Peterson <rpete...@redhat.com> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > > Unconditionally call gfs2_adjust_reservation in gfs2_alloc_blocks. Move > > the code for updating rd_free and rd_free_clone from gfs2_alloc_blocks > > into gfs2_adjust_reservation. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Gruenbacher <agrue...@redhat.com> > > --- > > fs/gfs2/rgrp.c | 26 ++++++++++++++++---------- > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c b/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c > > index bbcf8b8b2597f..733e21cd4cf25 100644 > > --- a/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c > > +++ b/fs/gfs2/rgrp.c > (snip) > > - if (gfs2_rs_active(&ip->i_res)) > > - gfs2_adjust_reservation(ip, &rbm, *nblocks); > > + error = gfs2_adjust_reservation(ip, &rbm, *nblocks); > > Wait. At what point do we require a reservation for all block allocations? > In today's code, a reservation is not required, so the check for > "if (gfs2_rs_active(&ip->i_res))" is necessary because you can't adjust a > reservation that's not active (in the tree)...being within the tree > determines whether the reservation is active or not. > > Yes, I'm looking forward to the day when we require a reservation for all > block allocations as per my original version (this needs to happen to allow > rgrp sharing between processes.) Perhaps a future patch will add the > requirement, but at this point, there's no such requirement, which means > this patch will probably break during a git bisect, no?
gfs2_adjust_reservation already checks if there is an active reservation, so the duplicate check here is unnecessary. > We only get into this situation when all bitmaps are nearly full or fragmented > and therefore no reservation will fit the minimum requirements, but we still > need to allow small one-shot block allocations. So we need to do lots of > full-bitmap testing. Or else we need to add this patch only after the > patch that makes reservations mandatory. > > Regards, > Bob Peterson Andreas
