This fix some instances where we were continuing
after calling ext4_error. ext4_error call panic
only if errors=panic mount option is set. So
we need to make sure we return correctly after
ext4_error call
Reported by: Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V &
I gues Ted is following the same terminology.
http://marc.info/?l=git&m=117965490313979&w=2
There are four branches in git.git repository that track the
source tree of git: "master", "maint", "next", and "pu". I may
add more maintenance branches (e.g. "maint-1.5.1") if we have
huge backward in
Chris Mason wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 18:13:53 +0530
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I get this error while running compilebench
http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/compilebench/compilebench-0.4.tar.bz2
I've uploaded compilebench-0.6.tar.bz2 and up
I get this error while running compilebench
http://oss.oracle.com/~mason/compilebench/compilebench-0.4.tar.bz2
elm3b138:~/compilebench-0.4# ./compilebench -d /ext4/
using working directory /ext4/, 30 intial dirs 100 runs
native unpatched native-0 222MB in 9.17 seconds (24.25 MB/s)
native p
__acquires(kernel_sem)
+
{
struct buffer_head * bh;
struct ext4_super_block *es = NULL;
ext4: Fix sparse warnings.
From: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Fix sparse warnings related to static functions
and local variables.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL
Send some patches which are in my local repo for review.
The compile bench fix patch is already in patch queue.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext4/super.c | 16
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index 10feae6..62d7ec8 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -691,16 +691,16 @@ static int ext4_show_o
Both these options are enabled by default.
So if they are are not set in mount options
that means the user explicity disabled them
using nomablloc and nodelalloc option. Show
the same in ext4_show_options
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext4/super.c |6 +++
We need to look at the default value and make sure
the mount options are not set via default value
before showing them via ext4_show_options
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext4/super.c | 28
1 files changed, 16 insertions(
This fix the mballoc bug when running compile bench.
Instead of using direct division even though the arguments
are 32 bits we retain do_div. This would be needed if we
move to 64 bit logical block number.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext4/mballoc.c
Send some patches which are in my local repo for review.
The compile bench fix patch is already in patch queue.
GIT: Please enter your email below.
GIT: Lines beginning in "GIT: " will be removed.
GIT: Consider including an overall diffstat or table of contents
GIT: for the patch you are writing.
This ensure we test the latest features more easily.
We need an option to clear delayed alloc feature.
Add nodealloc option.
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext4/super.c |8 +++-
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/sup
Send some patches which are in my local repo for review.
The compile bench fix patch is already in patch queue.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
@@ -1279,6 +1280,9 @@ clear_qf_name:
case Opt_delalloc:
set_opt (sbi->s_mount_opt, DELALLOC);
break;
If delalloc, mballoc, extents are the new defaults, is there a reason to
k
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
We need to look at the default value and make sure
the mount options are not set via default value
before showing them via ext4_show_options
Hm, does this jive with the comment about what's intended?
/*
* Show an option if
* - it'
This fix some instances where we were continuing
after calling ext3_error. ext3_error calls panic
only if errors=panic mount option is set. So
we need to make sure we return correctly after
ext3_error call
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext3/balloc.c
Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext3/super.c | 16
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext3/super.c b/fs/ext3/super.c
index 0bfd3dc..6cfdd06 100644
--- a/fs/ext3/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext3/super.c
@@ -575,16 +575,16 @@ static int ext3_show_o
Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext2/super.c | 16
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext2/super.c b/fs/ext2/super.c
index 3d2019e..eb1a392 100644
--- a/fs/ext2/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext2/super.c
@@ -234,16 +234,16 @@ static int ext2_show_o
This fix some instances where we were continuing
after calling ext2_error. ext2_error call panic
only if errors=panic mount option is set. So
we need to make sure we return correctly after
ext2_error call
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/ext2/balloc.c
Valerie Clement wrote:
Hi all,
I ran a small test which creates one directory and 2O 8-KB size files in
it.
When the filesystem is mounted without the delalloc option, here is the
output of the command dumpe2fs for the group in which the directory and
the files are created:
Group 532 : (
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 cl
I guess the list dropped this mail. Sending again.
-aneesh
--- Begin Message ---
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
Alex Tomas wrote:
Hi,
could you try the patch attached. it should fix the issue. the idea
was to align requests in order to help raid5-like setups. but somewhere
I lost one bit in mballoc: it should pre-allocate all crossed stripes,
but it didn't.
as for discard, lustre doesn't use open/close
Alex Tomas wrote:
sorry, I don't quite understand how do you observe this with nomballoc
thanks, Alex
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
mballoc by default doesn't give the particular layout only if i force
small
size to use inode preallocation i am hitting the problem. ie to change
the
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 that Eric Sandeen is observing. I guess it
should not. Even
though the reservation
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
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 that Eric Sandeen is observing. I guess it
should not
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 10:55:05 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also add generic_find_next_le_bit
This gets used by the ext4 multi block allocator patches.
arm allmodconfig:
fs/ext4/mballoc.c: In function `ext4_mb_generate_buddy
This series contain the block bitmap validation
patch reworked as per Linus suggestion. I am
attaching below the iozone and lmbench results.
The lmbench summary is inlined below
File & VM system latencies in microseconds - smaller is better
--
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]>
---
include/linux/buffer_head.h | 29 +
1 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff
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 <[EM
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 <[EM
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 <[EM
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
e
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 <[EM
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 <[EM
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 <[EM
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
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
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
---
I 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.
===
[ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
2.6.24-rc3 #6
---
bash/2294 is trying to acquire lock:
(&journal->j_list_lock){--..}, at: []
journal_try_to_free_buffers+0x76/0x10c
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/ba
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
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 setu
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 del
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
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 up
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 del
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/ba
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 get_
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
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.
Any idea what i should try now. It is not spinning on the spin lock. I had the
spin lock debug enabled and added similar ch
scard 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
in
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 s
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 patc
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/s
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/f
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
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 ldis
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
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
messag
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 t
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. Th
[..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"),
> + param->s_
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 chan
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 mba
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 mo
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) {
> > +
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
> > > &
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= option using mount time. Use that value.
> > b)
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)
> > +
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
On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 02:42:00PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>
> The BUG_ON is:
>
> BUG_ON(*logical < le32_to_cpu(ex->ee_block) +
> le16_to_cpu(ex->ee_len));
>
> where these were the values:
>
> logical 8 ee_block 0 ee_len 32776
>
> Haven't looked further into it yet.
>
No
[] sys_fallocate+0xe4/0x10d
[] tracesys+0xd5/0xda
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
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
--
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
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
t; - start = start << bsbits;
> > - start = (start / (8 * (1024 * 1024))) * 8 * (1024 * 1024);
> > + pstart = ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical;
> > + pstart = pstart << bsbits;
> > + pstart = (pstart / (8 * (1024 * 1024)
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
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
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
] [] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x14
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/jbd2/commit.c |2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
index 2a081b7..2107820 100644
--- a/fs/jbd2/commit.c
+++ b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
@@ -359,7
uffer(bh);
> > + if (buffer_uptodate(bh))
> > + return 0;
>
> Here it will unlock the buffer and return zero.
>
> This function is unusable when passed an unlocked buffer.
>
Updated patch below.
commit 70d4ca32604e0935a8b9a49c5ac8b9c64c810693
Author:
xt4_lblk_t first_block, last_block;
> + ext4_fsblk_t first_pblock, last_pblock;
> +};
>
Updated patch
commit c4786b67cdc5b24d2548a69b62774fb54f8f1575
Author: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue Jan 22 09:28:55 2008 +0530
ext4: Add EXT4_IOC_MIGRATE ioc
On Wed, Jan 23, 2008 at 02:06:59PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:02:09 -0500 "Theodore Ts'o" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> > +int ext4_get_blocks_wrap(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode, sector_t
> > block,
> > + unsigned long max_blocks, struct bu
TECTED]>
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Dilger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'
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
+++ b/Documentation/filesy
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
D
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) {
>
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 gues
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)
> > +{
>
This diff contain mballoc fixes and update for ext3-4 migrate patch.
Testing:
ext3 to ext4 migration.
I will be putting the patch queue for abat test now.
-aneesh
diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
index ebcd25e..99d16f5 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
@@
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
> > > > B
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,
bitmap_bh);
...
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,
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 pa
ecord(cbh);
>
> if (err)
> jbd2_journal_abort(journal, err);
>
>
Needs the below small change also. I don't see this patch in the patch
queue. So i guess we can add the below diff to the same. The change was
suggested by Girish. Before journal checksum
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 truncati
Incompat feature need to be checked using JBD2_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
fs/jbd2/commit.c |2 +-
fs/jbd2/recovery.c |2 +-
2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/jbd2/commit.c b/fs/jbd2/commit.c
index 2
201 - 300 of 349 matches
Mail list logo
