[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100412140356.GH12238@atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz>
Date: Mon, 12 Apr 2010 16:03:56 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: tytso@....edu
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
ext4 development <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] ext4: don't use quota reservation for speculative
metadata blocks
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2010 at 04:45:52PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Because we can badly over-reserve metadata when we
> > calculate worst-case, it complicates things for quota, since
> > we must reserve and then claim later, retry on EDQUOT, etc.
> > Quota is also a generally smaller pool than fs free blocks,
> > so this over-reservation hurts more, and more often.
> >
> > I'm of the opinion that it's not the worst thing to allow
> > metadata to push a user slightly over quota. This simplifies
> > the code and avoids the false quota rejections that result
> > from worst-case speculation.
>
> This patch series looks good to me in general; Jan, it requires
> relatively minor changes to the quota system, so it would be good to
> get your Acked-by for the first two patches. Since the changes to the
> ext4 layer are more in-depth, any objections if I carry all three
> patches in the ext4 tree?
Yes, I'm fine with you carrying the quota patches. I've already sent
my acks.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
SuSE CR Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists