[lkml]   [2012]   [Jan]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
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.


(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:0.080 / U:4.492 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site