lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: change available ranges in quota check
    Hi Christoph,

    I'd like to explain the reason why I sent the patch series.

    Here is an example where I activated user quota and set each softlimit and
    hardlimit as follows.

    | softlimit | hardlimit
    -------------------------------
    block | 1M | 2M
    -------------------------------
    inode | 3 | 5

    I succeeded to create files up to the inode hardlimit using touch command.
    The quota information is shown as follows.

    # xfs_quota -x -c 'report -u -b -i -h' /mnt/xfs2
    User quota on /mnt/xfs2 (/dev/vdb)
    Blocks Inodes
    User ID Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace Used Soft Hard Warn/Grace
    ---------- --------------------------------- ---------------------------------
    root 0 0 0 00 [------] 3 0 0 00 [------]
    xfstest01 0 1M 2M 00 [------] 5 3 5 00 [6 days]
    ~~~~ ~~

    However, I failed to create and add another file due to the quota limitation.

    $ touch /mnt/xfs2/dir00/file05
    touch: cannot touch `/mnt/xfs2/dir00/file05': Disk quota exceeded

    It seems the inode quota works well.

    Regarding the block quota, I got the quota limitation message even if I
    created a 2MB file which is equal to the hardlimit of disk quota.

    $ dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/xfs2/dir00/file01 bs=2M count=1
    dd: writing `/mnt/xfs2/dir00/file01': Disk quota exceeded
    1+0 records in ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    0+0 records out
    2093056 bytes (2.1 MB) copied, 0.00561516 s, 373 MB/s

    I'd like to change the available range of the block quota, and
    also change the inode quota check to the same way as the block check
    introduced in PATCH 2/3 to make it more general.

    Regards.


    (2012/01/27 20:02), Christoph Hellwig wrote:
    > On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 03:21:02PM +0900, HAYASAKA Mitsuo wrote:
    >>> Can you send a testcase that reproduces issues with the old behaviour?
    >>>
    >>
    >> Regarding (1) related to inode reservation, current xfs works well
    >> because inode is reserved one by one if required.
    >>
    >> For example, when an new inode tries to be reserved in xfs_trans_dqresv(),
    >> it checks quota as follows.
    >
    > I'm just curious what the intent behdind the patches was. They look
    > good to me, but I wonder why we need to change it at all.
    >
    >> To make it more general, this check should be the same way as the new
    >> block quota check introduced in the PATCH 2/3 where the disk block can
    >> be used up to the block quota limits.
    >
    > So I guess that's the part we'd want a test case for if possible.
    >



    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2012-01-27 15:05    [W:0.025 / U:239.652 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site