On 06/21/2017 04:14 PM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
On 6/14/17 11:44 AM, jeffm@xxxxxxxx wrote:From: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@xxxxxxxx> 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 <jeffm@xxxxxxxx> --- 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.
Josef and I pushed this needle back and forth a bunch of times in the early days. I still think we can allocate a few more chunks than we do now...
-chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
