extent format for symlink.
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch enable extent format for normal symlink. Extent format enables
to refere file system blocks 32 bits. Enabling extent format for symlink
enables to have symlink block beyond 2**32 blocks. We still don't enable
extent
to the extent to prevent wrong data
reaching
userspace.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 151 ++---
1 files changed, 144 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
Put the old extent details back if we fail to split the
uninitialized extent.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 26 --
1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index
Test results for the patch.
mmaptest simply maps a range and write to it.
The length of the extent indicate whether it is initialized or not.
There is no space in the file system for another block.
So the uninitialized extent have to be converted to initialized extent.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/ext4#
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 08:01:28PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
+
+ /* Now write all the buffer_heads in the page */
+ do {
+ set_buffer_uptodate(bh);
+ if (ext4_should_journal_data(inode)) {
+ err
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 10:10:48AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 20:09 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
.
+ ext4_journal_stop(handle);
+ goto out_unlock;
+ }
+ if (!ret ext4_should_order_data(inode)) {
+ ret = walk_page_buffers
. But that is
another patch.
From 6a73edd4dbb32344e6a83ebdc07edd0e96d376bd Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:57:38 +0530
Subject: [PATCH] ext4: Convert uninitialized extent to initialized extent in
case of file system full
A write to prealloc
On Thu, Feb 21, 2008 at 09:39:20AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 09:13 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
We would like to get notified when we are doing a write on mmap section.
This is needed with respect to preallocated area. We split the preallocated
area into initialzed
-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC:Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 62 ++--
1 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index 89772b9..ccddd21 100644
--- a/fs/ext4
changes attached.
ext4: Convert list_for_each_rcu() to list_for_each_entry_rcu()
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
The list_for_each_entry_rcu() primitive should be used instead of
list_for_each_rcu(), as the former is easier to use and provides
better type safety.
http://groups.google.com
Hi all,
I am seeing the below error in the console. But the tests are reported
as success.
EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204044: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7):
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:19:44PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:39:52AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Eric Sandeen wrote:
e2fsck doesn't expect to find char, block, fifo, or socket
files with the extent flag set, so clear that in ext4_mknod.
Signed-off
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 06:15:01PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Hi all,
I am seeing the below error in the console. But the tests are reported
as success.
EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204044
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 06:15:01PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Hi all,
I am seeing the below error in the console. But the tests are reported
as success.
EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204044
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:39:52AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Eric Sandeen wrote:
e2fsck doesn't expect to find char, block, fifo, or socket
files with the extent flag set, so clear that in ext4_mknod.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Index:
error later when we are verifying the extent header
Also we don't want to set extent flag for symlinks, char, block, fifo
or socket
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/ialloc.c | 22 +++---
fs/ext4/namei.c |1 -
2 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8
Mingming,
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:19:05AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Also don't inherit EXT4_EXTENTS_FL from parent directory.
If we have a directory with extent flag set and later mount the file
system with -o noextents, the files created in that directory will also
have extent flag
and
that would result in data loss.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/file.c | 19 ++-
fs/ext4/inode.c |6 ++
include/linux/ext4_fs.h |1 +
3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/file.c b/fs
IF we fail fallocate don't call ext4_error. Also don't hide errors
from ext4_get_blocks_wrap
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c |5 +++--
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index 5b22f71
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 04:14:34PM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Sat, 2008-02-16 at 08:53 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
How about the following patch?
Regards,
Mingming
ext4: ext4_get_blocks_wrap fix for writing to preallocated
From: Mingming Cao [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This patch fixed
and
that would result in data loss. The changes are also needed to handle ENOSPC
when writing to an mmap section of files with holes.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/file.c | 19 ++-
fs/ext4/inode.c |6 ++
include/linux/ext4_fs.h
On Sat, Feb 16, 2008 at 08:53:34AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 11:43:04AM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-15 at 23:46 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
fallocate blocks are considered as sparse area and read from them should
return zero
fallocate blocks are considered as sparse area and read from them should
return zero. ext4_ext_get_blocks should return zero for read request.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git
The path variable returned via ext4_ext_find_extent is a kmalloc variable
and need to be freeded. It also contain refrences to buffer_head which need
to be dropped.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c |6 +++---
fs/ext4/migrate.c
In ext4_ext_convert_to_initialized before we need to request for journal
write access before we even modify the extent length.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 11 ---
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4
. Clear? yes
Inode 1120 is a zero-length directory. Clear? yes
Inode 1121 is a zero-length directory. Clear? yes
Fix the same by dropping the inode link count using drop_nlink
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/namei.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1
Steps:
[root]# more /root/largedir
i=65000
mkdir /mnt/tmp/test/
cd /mnt/tmp/test/
while [ $i -gt 0 ]
do
mkdir $i
i=$(expr $i - 1)
done
# /root/largedir
# cd /mnt/tmp/test
# rm -rf *
# cd ..
# ls -al
drwxr-xr-x 1 root root 1380352 Feb 12 07:15 test
# e2fsck -fv /dev/sda7
# ls
On Sun, Feb 10, 2008 at 11:19:12PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Sat, Feb 02, 2008 at 12:59:43AM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
The following series of emails will contain the large part of the
e2fsprogs patch series that is used for Lustre. It will not contain
the regression tests for
On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 05:00:18PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
In ext4_mb_complex_scan_group, if the extent length of the newly
found extentet is greater than than the total free blocks counted
in group info, break without claiming the block.
Document different ext4_error usage
other issues.
Eric ,
can you run the test with below patch and see if this makes any
difference ?. I know we are not fixing any bugs in the below patch.
ext4: Don't panic in case of corrupt bitmap
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Multiblock allocator was calling BUG_ON in many case
[c01e200c] ext4_unlink+0x6e/0x1a4
[c017449e] vfs_unlink+0x49/0x89
[c0175f02] do_unlinkat+0x96/0x12c
[c0175fa8] sys_unlink+0x10/0x12
[c0104f8a] sysenter_past_esp+0x5f/0xa5
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/migrate.c | 117
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Mon 04-02-08 15:42:28, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
This is with the new ext3 - ext4 migrate code added. The recently added
lockdep for jbd2 helped to find this out. We want to hold the i_data_sem
on the ext3 inode during
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 02:42:28PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 05-02-08 17:53:42, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
How about the patch below. I did the below testing
a) migrate a file
b) run fs_inode fsstres fsx_linux.
The intention was to find out whether the new locking is breaking any
On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 05:34:04PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Tue 05-02-08 21:57:03, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
I have a FIXME at migrate.c:524 documenting exactly that. The
difficult question was by how much we should extent the journal. ? But
in reality we might have accumulated enough
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:24:36AM +0100, Heiko Carstens wrote:
| fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function 'ext4_mb_generate_buddy':
| fs/ext4/mballoc.c:954: error: implicit declaration of function
'generic_find_next_le_bit'
The s390 specific bitops uses parts of the generic
can add the below diff to the same. The change was
suggested by Girish. Before journal checksum changes sync_dirty_buffer
did the get_bh.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
index da8d0eb..2b88ab0 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
+++ b/fs
Hi,
This is with the new ext3 - ext4 migrate code added. The recently added
lockdep for jbd2 helped to find this out. We want to hold the i_data_sem
on the ext3 inode during migration to prevent walking the ext3 inode
when it is being converted to ext4 format. Also we want to avoid
file
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 05:31:56PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
Hi,
On Mon 04-02-08 15:42:28, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
This is with the new ext3 - ext4 migrate code added. The recently added
lockdep for jbd2 helped to find this out. We want to hold the i_data_sem
on the ext3 inode during
With journal checksum patch we added asyn commit of journal commit headers.
During the conversion we missed to take a reference on buffer head. Before
the change sync_dirty_buffer did the get_bh(). The associative put_bh is
done by journal_wait_on_commit_record()
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V
On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 10:23:16AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
On Monday 04 February 2008 5:12:28 am Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Hi,
This is with the new ext3 - ext4 migrate code added. The recently added
lockdep for jbd2 helped to find this out. We want to hold the i_data_sem
on the ext3
On Sun, Feb 03, 2008 at 01:39:02PM +0100, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008, Heiko Carstens wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 10:04:04PM +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Fri, Feb 01, 2008 at 12:22:57PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 1 Feb 2008 21:02:08 +0100
Bastian Blank
On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 04:42:07PM +0100, Eric Sesterhenn wrote:
* Eric Sesterhenn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
hi,
while running a modified version of fsfuzzer i triggered the BUG() in
ext4_mb_release_inode_pa(). Sadly I am not able to reproduce this using
the generated image, but
);
...
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index 76e5fed..06d1f52 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
@@ -3069,7 +3069,7 @@ static int
On Fri, Jan 25, 2008 at 11:15:00PM -0500, Theodore Tso wrote:
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 11:25:32AM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
+static int free_ext_idx(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode,
+ struct ext4_extent_idx *ix)
+{
+ int i, retval = 0
updated patch. Waiting for the test results.
I am only attaching the diff. Mballoc patch is really large.
-aneesh
diff --git a/Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt
b/Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt
index 4f329af..ec7d349 100644
--- a/Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt
+++
I have updated patches based on the review feedback from Andrew.
I have tested this on
128(64p) ppc64 sles
4(2p)ppc64 debian
4(2p)x86_64 ubuntu-gutsy
Updated patches are at
http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/jan-24-2008/
http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/jan-24-2008/patches.tar
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:26:14PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
+/* find most significant bit */
+static int fmsb(unsigned short word)
+{
+ int order;
+
+ if (word 255) {
+ order = 7;
+ word = 8;
+ } else {
+ order = -1
Hi,
I looked at the GFP flag usage in mballoc. I think the below change
make sense with respect to mballoc.
First hunk is memory allocation during ext4_mb_init which is called
during mount time. I guess it is ok to convert that to GFP_KERNEL.
Second hunk is during ext4_mb_free_metadata. I
70d4ca32604e0935a8b9a49c5ac8b9c64c810693
Author: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu Jan 24 10:50:24 2008 +0530
Add buffer head related helper functions
Add buffer head related helper function bh_uptodate_or_lock and
bh_submit_read which can be used by file system
Signed-off
-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
+#if BITS_PER_LONG == 64
+#define mb_correct_addr_and_bit(bit, addr) \
+{ \
+ bit
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac-ac_o_ex.fe_logical bsbits
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix the issue, because as start_off is also
loff_t, start_off = ac-ac_o_ex.fe_logical bsbits
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 02:09:41PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:43:40AM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
What about this ? I guess we will overflow start = start bsbits;
Hi Aneesh,
your patch below doesn't fix
in ext4_mb_normalize_request
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
kernel BUG at fs/ext4/mballoc.c:3148!
The BUG_ON is:
BUG_ON(size = 0 || size = EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(ac-ac_sb));
where the value of size is 4293920768.
This is due to the overflow of the variable start in the
ext4_mb_normalize_request() function
On Mon, Jan 14, 2008 at 12:49:27PM -0800, Mingming Cao wrote:
Hi Guys,
Could you check the checkpatch.pl warnings and see if it make sense to fix
them? Thanks!
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/fs/ext4/stylecheck$ grep has style problems *
linux-2.6.24-rc7-48-bit-i_blocks.patch.out:Your patch has
On Sat, Jan 12, 2008 at 11:44:00PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
fs/ext4/extents.c | 26 ++
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index 81bce98..4269cc6 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4
] lock_release_holdtime+0x27/0x49
[81056480] __lock_acquire+0x4e7/0xc4d
[81053c91] lock_release_holdtime+0x27/0x49
[810a8de7] sys_fallocate+0xe4/0x10d
[8100c043] tracesys+0xd5/0xda
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c | 26
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 03:04:08PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
Hi,
I've got problems with mballoc when I create the ext4 filesystem with
the uninit_groups option enabled.
First, I do a single test on a filesystem created without the
uninit_groups option and mounted with the defaults
Hi Mingming,
New patches for patch queue can be found at
http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/jan-10-2008-ver2/
The changes are
a) mballoc patch got an explanation about regular allocator.
b) mballoc regular allocator we changed the usage of ffs to fls. I guess
it makes sense to use
On Thu, Jan 10, 2008 at 02:43:23PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jan 10, 2008 21:03 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
if (i = sbi-s_mb_order2_reqs) {
- i--;
- if ((ac-ac_g_ex.fe_len (~(1 i))) == 0)
+ /*
+* This should tell if fe_len
[..snip...]
+ if (param-s_raid_stride
+ (param-s_raid_stripe_width % param-s_raid_stride) != 0)
+ fprintf(stderr, _(\nWarning: RAID stripe-width %u not an even
+ multiple of stride %u.\n\n),
+
the super block.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/super.c | 10 ++
1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index db1edc8..10330eb 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -2136,6 +2136,16
sb_set_blocksize validates whether the specfied block size can be used by
the file system. Make sure we fail mounting the file system if the
blocksize specfied cannot be used.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/super.c | 18 +++---
1 files changed, 7
Hi,
mballoc currently causes fragmentation of small size files. The
behaviour can be observed by running parallel dd on ext4 file system. A
sample test case can be found here.
http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/mballoc-frag/fragmentation-analysis
This is because for small size request/file
Updated patch. The earlier patch did multiple brelse() during failed
mount case.
ext4: Check for return value from sb_set_blocksize
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
sb_set_blocksize validates whether the specfied block size can be used by
the file system. Make sure we fail mounting
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 01:10:41PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
With the multi block allocator when we don't have prealloc space we discard
@@ -3790,7 +3782,9 @@ repeat:
/* if we still need more blocks and some PAs were used, try again */
if (free needed busy) {
+ busy
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 07:44:30PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 09-01-08 23:54:28, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 01:10:41PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
With the multi block allocator when we don't have prealloc space we
discard
@@ -3790,7 +3782,9 @@ repeat
On Wed, Jan 09, 2008 at 04:36:27PM -0700, Andreas Dilger wrote:
On Jan 09, 2008 22:37 +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
The stipe size used during block allocation is calculated as below.
a) if we specify a stripe=value option using mount time. Use that value.
b) if not use the value
Hi Alex,
With the latest changes i see both group preallocation and inode
preallocation being used by mballoc. Since the choice is now made with
file size not just the request size. (None of the test were actually
using inode prealloc previously). Now that the test are using inode prealloc i
see
On Tue, Jan 08, 2008 at 12:01:14PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Hi,
This is the update for mballoc patch. The changes are result of merging
with the lustre cvs version of mballoc. I liked this patch better because
it is simple. I also the updated the commit message. The update commit
Hi,
This patch is not even compile tested. I am sending it over to find out
whether some of the changes are even needed and to make sure i didn't
drop any bug fix in the merge.
something I noticed.
a) prealloc table is completely gone.
b) ext4_mb_put_pa change. ( I guess that is a bug with
On Mon, Jan 07, 2008 at 11:58:00PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Hi,
This patch is not even compile tested. I am sending it over to find out
whether some of the changes are even needed and to make sure i didn't
drop any bug fix in the merge.
something I noticed.
a) prealloc table
Hi,
This is the update for mballoc patch. The changes are result of merging
with the lustre cvs version of mballoc. I liked this patch better because
it is simple. I also the updated the commit message. The update commit
message is also attached below. We only have one FIXME!! in the commit
If the block device hard sector size is larger than EXT4_MIN_BLOCK_SIZE we
end up with wrong block number when reading super block.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/super.c |8
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 01:59:22PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
If the block device hard sector size is larger than EXT4_MIN_BLOCK_SIZE we
end up with wrong block number when reading super block.
Ignore the patch. I got confused by the do_div syntax. The do_div already save
the division
If the block device hard sector size is larger than EXT4_MIN_BLOCK_SIZE we
end up with wrong block number when reading super block.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/super.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b
Hi Mingming,
I have placed the updated patch queue at
http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/dec-24-2007/
The .tar can be found at
http://www.radian.org/~kvaneesh/ext4/dec-24-2007/patch-series.tar
The changes involve the below attached diff. I also updated the commit message
of mballoc core
logic going on tight loop resulting in watchdog
timer triggering soft lockup warning.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c | 12 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/mballoc.c b/fs/ext4/mballoc.c
index 844765c
On Thu, Dec 20, 2007 at 08:02:42PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
I am seeing this with the patch queue. I can reproduce this on x86 and
powerpc. I see the file system full when this happens. The same happens even
without delalloc enabled.
The below patch fix the same for me. One thing i
The series include the truncate_mutex to read write semaphore conversion. I am
marking below some of the test results.
For O_DIRECT workloads we won't see the contention on truncate mutex because we
are
doing a get_block under inode-i_mutex.
For FIBMAP we won't see contention because the
Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c |9 --
fs/ext4/inode.c | 69 +-
include/linux/ext4_fs.h | 12 ++--
3 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index
We are currently taking the truncate_mutex for every read. This would have
performance impact on large CPU configuration. Convert the lock to read write
semaphore and take read lock when we are trying to read the file.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/balloc.c
Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c |7 +++--
fs/ext4/inode.c | 69 +-
include/linux/ext4_fs.h | 12 ++--
3 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index
The below patchset is NOT for patch queue. I am posting it here to get
feedback regarding the approach and what test I need to run to make sure we
are not breaking any locking rules.
I have run dbench, ffsb, fsstress, fs_di, fs_inode, fsx_linux . Bonnie
didn't run completely. In the automated
When we are overwriting a file and not actually allocating new file system
blocks we need to take only the read lock on i_data_sem.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/inode.c | 32
1 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 8 deletions
ext4_ext_get_blocks returns negative values on error. We should
check for = 0
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/ext4/extents.c |4 ++--
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index a2475d4..ce57245 100644
Alex,
This is my attempt at understanding multi block allocator. I have
few questions marked as FIXME below. Can you help answering them.
Most of this data is already in the patch queue as commit message.
I have updated some details regarding preallocation. Once we
understand the details i will
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.24-rc3 #6
---
bash/2294 is trying to acquire lock:
(journal-j_list_lock){--..}, at: [c01eee2f]
actually sent in a patch which changes asking for review to
linux-arch. I haven't got the response yet. Attaching the patch
below
Introduce ext4_find_next_bit
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
This gets used by the ext4 multi block allocator patches.
Also add generic_find_next_le_bit
Signed
Andreas suggested me to get the iozone results after multiple runs.
I don't see any performance issue with the blk bitmap validation changes
now.
v2.6.24-rc3-35-g2e12044
File VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
This is the updated ext2/3/4 block bitmap validation patches
Changes from the last post
a) moved the bh_uptodate_or_lock and bh_submit_read to
fs/buffer.c and added EXPORT_SYMBOL
b) Updated bh_submit_read not to release buffer on
failure. This handles one reference handling bug in the
When a new block bitmap is read from disk in read_block_bitmap()
there are a few bits that should ALWAYS be set. In particular,
the blocks given corresponding to block bitmap, inode bitmap and inode tables.
Validate the block bitmap against these blocks.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL
When a new block bitmap is read from disk in read_block_bitmap()
there are a few bits that should ALWAYS be set. In particular,
the blocks given corresponding to block bitmap, inode bitmap and inode tables.
Validate the block bitmap against these blocks.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL
When a new block bitmap is read from disk in read_block_bitmap()
there are a few bits that should ALWAYS be set. In particular,
the blocks given corresponding to block bitmap, inode bitmap and inode tables.
Validate the block bitmap against these blocks.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL
Add buffer head related helper function
bh_uptodate_or_lock and bh_submit_read
which can be used by file system
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
fs/buffer.c | 41 +
include/linux/buffer_head.h |2 ++
2 files
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
This is the updated ext2/3/4 block bitmap validation patches
Changes from the last post
a) moved the bh_uptodate_or_lock and bh_submit_read to
fs/buffer.c and added EXPORT_SYMBOL
b) Updated bh_submit_read not to release buffer on
failure. This handles one
When a new block bitmap is read from disk in read_block_bitmap()
there are a few bits that should ALWAYS be set. In particular,
the blocks given corresponding to block bitmap, inode bitmap and inode tables.
Validate the block bitmap against these blocks.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL
When a new block bitmap is read from disk in read_block_bitmap()
there are a few bits that should ALWAYS be set. In particular,
the blocks given corresponding to block bitmap, inode bitmap and inode tables.
Validate the block bitmap against these blocks.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V [EMAIL
Hi All,
I looked at the delalloc and reservation differences that Valerie was observing.
Below is my understanding. I am not sure whether the below will result in
higher fragmentation that Eric Sandeen is observing. I guess it should not. Even
though the reservation gets discarded during the
I guess the list dropped this mail. Sending again.
-aneesh
---BeginMessage---
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
Hi All,
I looked at the delalloc and reservation differences that Valerie was
observing.
Below is my understanding. I am not sure whether the below will result
in higher fragmentation
1 - 100 of 257 matches
Mail list logo
