[PATCH 5/8] btrfs: don't enospc all tickets on flush failure

2018-12-03 Thread Josef Bacik
With the introduction of the per-inode block_rsv it became possible to have really really large reservation requests made because of data fragmentation. Since the ticket stuff assumed that we'd always have relatively small reservation requests it just killed all tickets if we were unable to

Re: [PATCH 5/8] btrfs: don't enospc all tickets on flush failure

2018-11-28 Thread Nikolay Borisov
On 27.11.18 г. 21:46 ч., Josef Bacik wrote: > On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 02:25:52PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote: >> >> >> On 21.11.18 г. 21:03 ч., Josef Bacik wrote: >>> With the introduction of the per-inode block_rsv it became possible to >>> have really really large reservation requests made

Re: [PATCH 5/8] btrfs: don't enospc all tickets on flush failure

2018-11-27 Thread Josef Bacik
On Mon, Nov 26, 2018 at 02:25:52PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 21.11.18 г. 21:03 ч., Josef Bacik wrote: > > With the introduction of the per-inode block_rsv it became possible to > > have really really large reservation requests made because of data > > fragmentation. Since the

Re: [PATCH 5/8] btrfs: don't enospc all tickets on flush failure

2018-11-26 Thread Nikolay Borisov
On 21.11.18 г. 21:03 ч., Josef Bacik wrote: > With the introduction of the per-inode block_rsv it became possible to > have really really large reservation requests made because of data > fragmentation. Since the ticket stuff assumed that we'd always have > relatively small reservation

[PATCH 5/8] btrfs: don't enospc all tickets on flush failure

2018-11-21 Thread Josef Bacik
With the introduction of the per-inode block_rsv it became possible to have really really large reservation requests made because of data fragmentation. Since the ticket stuff assumed that we'd always have relatively small reservation requests it just killed all tickets if we were unable to