* flex_bg information initialization and question on resize/bad inodes with 48 bits filesystem
@ 2009-09-11 17:57 Damien Guibouret
2009-09-11 18:35 ` Theodore Tso
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Damien Guibouret @ 2009-09-11 17:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
Hello,
I have looked at the new features provided by ext4 and have a question
on flex_bg information initialization:
into ext4_fill_flex_info function of fs/ext4/super.c (lines 1698, 1700
and 1702 for kernel 2.6.31) doesn't the atomic_set calls be atomic_add
to sum statistics of each group composing a flex group, or do I
misunderstand something ?
For the extension to manage 48 bits blocks number, I do not see anything
to treat this for resize and bad inodes into kernel or e2fsprogs. For
the resize inode, it is perhaps an incompatibility of this feature with
48 bits blocks number, but for the bad inode ?
For information, I did not subscribe to the list, so could you please
CC-me in your answer ?
Thanks,
Damien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: flex_bg information initialization and question on resize/bad inodes with 48 bits filesystem
2009-09-11 17:57 flex_bg information initialization and question on resize/bad inodes with 48 bits filesystem Damien Guibouret
@ 2009-09-11 18:35 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-11 20:57 ` [PATCH] ext4: Fix initalization of s_flex_groups Theodore Ts'o
2009-09-12 8:08 ` flex_bg information initialization and question on resize/bad inodes with 48 bits filesystem Damien Guibouret
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Tso @ 2009-09-11 18:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Damien Guibouret; +Cc: linux-ext4
On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:57:00PM +0200, Damien Guibouret wrote:
>
> I have looked at the new features provided by ext4 and have a question
> on flex_bg information initialization:
> into ext4_fill_flex_info function of fs/ext4/super.c (lines 1698, 1700
> and 1702 for kernel 2.6.31) doesn't the atomic_set calls be atomic_add
> to sum statistics of each group composing a flex group, or do I
> misunderstand something ?
Good eye; that's a bug; thanks for pointing that out.
> For the extension to manage 48 bits blocks number, I do not see anything
> to treat this for resize and bad inodes into kernel or e2fsprogs. For
> the resize inode, it is perhaps an incompatibility of this feature with
> 48 bits blocks number, but for the bad inode ?
There is a plan for how to handle online resizing for > 2^32 block
filesystems, but it hasn't been implemented yet. The basic support
for it is there; that's what the META_BG feature is designed to
support, so existing kernels will be able to deal with resized large
filesystemes. But the code to actually do the on-line resizing hasn't
been implemented yet.
For the bad block inode, the solution is to make it be extent mapped
inode. This also hasn't been implemented yet, but this is a much
simpler one to write. The main reason why we haven't is that modern
disks rarely have system-visible bad blocks; normally the hard drive
has its own bad block remapping layer in hardware so we never see a
bad block until the disk is failing so badly it needs to be replaced
ASAP.
- Ted
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] ext4: Fix initalization of s_flex_groups
2009-09-11 18:35 ` Theodore Tso
@ 2009-09-11 20:57 ` Theodore Ts'o
2009-09-12 8:08 ` flex_bg information initialization and question on resize/bad inodes with 48 bits filesystem Damien Guibouret
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Ts'o @ 2009-09-11 20:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Damien Guibouret; +Cc: Ext4 Developers List, Theodore Ts'o
The s_flex_groups array should have been initialized using atomic_add
to sum up the free counts from the block groups that make up a
flex_bg. By using atomic_set, the value of the s_flex_groups array
was set to the values of the last block group in the flex_bg.
The impact of this bug is that the block and inode allocation
algorithms might not pick the best flex_bg for new allocation.
Thanks to Damien Guibouret for pointing out this problem!
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
---
fs/ext4/super.c | 12 ++++++------
1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index 9f6fa3f..04c6933 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -1694,12 +1694,12 @@ static int ext4_fill_flex_info(struct super_block *sb)
gdp = ext4_get_group_desc(sb, i, NULL);
flex_group = ext4_flex_group(sbi, i);
- atomic_set(&sbi->s_flex_groups[flex_group].free_inodes,
- ext4_free_inodes_count(sb, gdp));
- atomic_set(&sbi->s_flex_groups[flex_group].free_blocks,
- ext4_free_blks_count(sb, gdp));
- atomic_set(&sbi->s_flex_groups[flex_group].used_dirs,
- ext4_used_dirs_count(sb, gdp));
+ atomic_add(ext4_free_inodes_count(sb, gdp),
+ &sbi->s_flex_groups[flex_group].free_inodes);
+ atomic_add(ext4_free_blks_count(sb, gdp),
+ &sbi->s_flex_groups[flex_group].free_blocks);
+ atomic_add(ext4_used_dirs_count(sb, gdp),
+ &sbi->s_flex_groups[flex_group].used_dirs);
}
return 1;
--
1.6.3.2.1.gb9f7d.dirty
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: flex_bg information initialization and question on resize/bad inodes with 48 bits filesystem
2009-09-11 18:35 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-11 20:57 ` [PATCH] ext4: Fix initalization of s_flex_groups Theodore Ts'o
@ 2009-09-12 8:08 ` Damien Guibouret
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Damien Guibouret @ 2009-09-12 8:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-ext4
Theodore Tso wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 07:57:00PM +0200, Damien Guibouret wrote:
>
>>I have looked at the new features provided by ext4 and have a question
>>on flex_bg information initialization:
>>into ext4_fill_flex_info function of fs/ext4/super.c (lines 1698, 1700
>>and 1702 for kernel 2.6.31) doesn't the atomic_set calls be atomic_add
>>to sum statistics of each group composing a flex group, or do I
>>misunderstand something ?
>
>
> Good eye; that's a bug; thanks for pointing that out.
>
>
>>For the extension to manage 48 bits blocks number, I do not see anything
>>to treat this for resize and bad inodes into kernel or e2fsprogs. For
>>the resize inode, it is perhaps an incompatibility of this feature with
>>48 bits blocks number, but for the bad inode ?
>
>
> There is a plan for how to handle online resizing for > 2^32 block
> filesystems, but it hasn't been implemented yet. The basic support
> for it is there; that's what the META_BG feature is designed to
> support, so existing kernels will be able to deal with resized large
> filesystemes. But the code to actually do the on-line resizing hasn't
> been implemented yet.
>
> For the bad block inode, the solution is to make it be extent mapped
> inode. This also hasn't been implemented yet, but this is a much
> simpler one to write. The main reason why we haven't is that modern
> disks rarely have system-visible bad blocks; normally the hard drive
> has its own bad block remapping layer in hardware so we never see a
> bad block until the disk is failing so badly it needs to be replaced
> ASAP.
>
> - Ted
>
>
Hi,
Thanks for the information.
Looking at ext4.h, I think the setting of extra time fields forgets to mask the epoch bits so the
epoch part overwrites nsec part. The second change is only for coherency (2 -> EXT4_EPOCH_BITS):
--- fs/ext4/ext4.h.old 2009-09-12 09:45:42.161490080 +0200
+++ fs/ext4/ext4.h 2009-09-12 09:47:43.808996848 +0200
@@ -481,8 +481,8 @@
static inline __le32 ext4_encode_extra_time(struct timespec *time)
{
return cpu_to_le32((sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4 ?
- time->tv_sec >> 32 : 0) |
- ((time->tv_nsec << 2) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK));
+ (time->tv_sec >> 32) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK : 0) |
+ ((time->tv_nsec << EXT4_EPOCH_BITS) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK));
}
static inline void ext4_decode_extra_time(struct timespec *time, __le32 extra)
@@ -490,7 +490,7 @@
if (sizeof(time->tv_sec) > 4)
time->tv_sec |= (__u64)(le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_EPOCH_MASK)
<< 32;
- time->tv_nsec = (le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK) >> 2;
+ time->tv_nsec = (le32_to_cpu(extra) & EXT4_NSEC_MASK) >> EXT4_EPOCH_BITS;
}
#define EXT4_INODE_SET_XTIME(xtime, inode, raw_inode) \
Regards,
Damien
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2009-09-12 8:06 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2009-09-11 17:57 flex_bg information initialization and question on resize/bad inodes with 48 bits filesystem Damien Guibouret
2009-09-11 18:35 ` Theodore Tso
2009-09-11 20:57 ` [PATCH] ext4: Fix initalization of s_flex_groups Theodore Ts'o
2009-09-12 8:08 ` flex_bg information initialization and question on resize/bad inodes with 48 bits filesystem Damien Guibouret
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.