Hi Reinoud,
On Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:52:23 +0100, Reinoud Zandijk wrote:
> Dear folks, dear Ryusuke,
> 
> I've found a bug in the cleanerd/nilfs interaction that might give rise to the
> various problems we've seen recently with the cleanerd. It comes down to the
> wrong counting of the number of dirty segments and the wrong counting of the
> number of checkpoints.
> 
> I created this disc using the NiLFS version 2.05 with 2.06 userland (AFAIK)
> with mkfs.nilfs and created a sparse file on it with my sparse file generator
> I created for UDF testing. It dismounted fine giving a nilfs_dump
> `vnd0e-dump-3'. When i remounted it again, the cleanerd started after a while
> and after unmounting it gives `vnd03-dump-3-cleanerd'. A diff shows:
<snip>
> And the su and cp files give:
> 
> @@ -30743,34 +31480,34 @@
>  Reading file `SU.out` for 1 blocks (4 Kb)
>  
>       SU file dump
> -             nclean       491
> -             ndirty       8
> +             nclean       496
> +             ndirty       21474836483
>               last alloced 7
>  
>               Segment 0
> -             Last modified Sun Jan 25 17:05:28 2009
> -             Containing nblks 2047
> -             Flags            0x2<DIRTY>
> +             Last modified Thu Jan  1 01:00:00 1970
> +             Containing nblks 0
> +             Flags            0x0
> 
> ......
> 
> @@ -30789,136 +31526,72 @@
>  
>  Reading file `CP.out` for 1 blocks (4 Kb)
>       CP file dump
> -             Number of checkpoints 8
> +             Number of checkpoints 8589934596
>               Number of snapshots   0
>  
>               Checkpoint number    1
> -             Flags                0x0
> +             Flags                0x2<INVALID>
>               Checkpoints in block 0
>               Created at Sun Jan 25 17:05:10 2009
>               Blocks incremented   11
>               Inodes count         3
>               Blocks count (red.)  9
> 
> ny idea as to if and why this can happen?

looks underflow or collision of updates.

> Has it been fixed in the meantime?

Not yet, I think.

> or could this be a clue as to the wierd behaviour seen by others including the
> corruption?

I don't know.  As I remember, the cleanerd does not depend on these
values, but it may be indirectly-induced.

Anyway, thanks for reporting this issue.
I'll review the cpfile and sufile again.

Regards,
Ryusuke Konishi
_______________________________________________
users mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.nilfs.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Reply via email to