Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Valerie Henson
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:47:38AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote: > Do I get it right that you just have in each cnode a pointer to the > previous & next cnode? But then if two consecutive cnodes get corrupted, > you have no way to connect the chain, do you? If each cnode contained > some unique identifi

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Valerie Henson
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 12:05:04PM -0400, Jeff Dike wrote: > > No, I'm referring to a different file. The scenario is that you have > a growing file in a nearly full disk with files being deleted (and > thus space being freed) such that allocations for the growing file > bounce back and forth bet

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Eric W. Biederman
Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> >> >> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly? >> > >> >- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned >> > by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount. >> >> Think

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will > > > > remain unchanged? > > > > > > Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added > > > to -mm, did so

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jörn Engel
On Thu, 26 April 2007 10:47:40 +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > This assumes that you know a chunk has been corrupted, though. > How do you find that out? Option 1: you notice something odd while serving userspace. Option 2: a checking/scrubbing daemon of some sorts. The first will obviously miss

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > >> > >> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly? > > > >- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned > > by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount. > > Think nfs. I access some nfs file as an unprivileged user

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will > > > remain unchanged? > > > > Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added > > to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers.

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will > > remain unchanged? > > Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added > to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers. > > There'

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Apr 25 2007 11:21, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> Why did we want to use fsuid, exactly? > >- Because ruid is completely the wrong thing we want mounts owned > by whomever's permissions we are using to perform the mount. Think nfs. I access some nfs file as an unprivileged user. knfsd, by nat

Ext2/3 block remapping tool

2007-04-26 Thread Jan Kara
Hello, I've been lately playing with remapping ext2/ext3 blocks (especially how much it can give us in terms of speed of things like KDE start). For that I've written two simple tools (you can get them from ftp.suse.com/pub/people/jack/ext3remapper.tar.gz): e2block2file to transform (prepars

[PATCH 5/5] ext4: write support for preallocated blocks/extents

2007-04-26 Thread Amit K. Arora
This patch adds write support for preallocated (using fallocate system call) blocks/extents. The preallocated extents in ext4 are marked "uninitialized", hence they need special handling especially while writing to them. This patch takes care of that. Signed-off-by: Amit Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

[PATCH 4/5] ext4: fallocate support in ext4

2007-04-26 Thread Amit K. Arora
This patch has the ext4 implemtation of fallocate system call. Signed-off-by: Amit Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/ext4/extents.c | 201 +++- fs/ext4/file.c |1 include/linux/ext4_fs.h |7 + include/linux/ext4_f

[PATCH 3/5] ext4: Extent overlap bugfix

2007-04-26 Thread Amit K. Arora
This is a fix for an extent-overlap bug. The fallocate() implementation on ext4 depends on this bugfix. Though this fix had been posted earlier, but because it is still not part of mainline code, I have attached it here too. Signed-off-by: Amit Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- fs/ext4/extents.c

[PATCH 2/5] fallocate() on s390

2007-04-26 Thread Amit K. Arora
This patch implements support of fallocate system call on s390(x) platform. A wrapper is added to address the issue which s390 ABI has with "preferred" ordering of arguments in this system call (i.e. int, int, loff_t, loff_t). I will request s390 experts to please review this code and verify if th

[PATCH 1/5] fallocate() implementation in i86, x86_64 and powerpc

2007-04-26 Thread Amit K. Arora
This patch implements the fallocate() system call and adds support for i386, x86_64 and powerpc. NOTE: It is based on 2.6.21 kernel version. Signed-off-by: Amit Arora <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- arch/i386/kernel/syscall_table.S |1 arch/powerpc/kernel/sys_ppc32.c |7 ++ arch/x86_64/ker

[PATCH 0/5] fallocate system call

2007-04-26 Thread Amit K. Arora
Based on the discussion, this new patchset uses following as the interface for fallocate() system call: asmlinkage long sys_fallocate(int fd, int mode, loff_t offset, loff_t len) It seems that only s390 architecture has a problem with such a layout of arguments in fallocate(). Thus for s390, we

Re: VFAT: slow fs corruption? [long]

2007-04-26 Thread Albrecht Dreß
Hi Ben! Thanks a lot for your comments, and sorry for the late reply, I did more tests in the meantime... Am 19.04.07 01:00 schrieb(en) Benjamin LaHaise: On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 07:58:40PM +0200, Albrecht Dreß wrote: > - Are there known issues with VFAT in 2.6.11 which might lead to the >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Jeff Dike wrote: On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: Jeff Dike wrote: How about this case: Growing file starts in chunk A. Overflows into chunk B. Delete file in chunk A. Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in chunk A (a

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Alan Cox wrote: Preventive measures are taken to limit only one continuation inode per file per chunk. This can be done easily in the chunk allocation algorithm for disk space. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by How are you handling the allocation in this situation, are you assuming

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> So then as far as you're concerned, the patches which were in -mm will > remain unchanged? Basically yes. I've merged the update patch, which was not yet added to -mm, did some cosmetic code changes, and updated the patch headers. There's one open point, that I think we haven't really explored,

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > > Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do > > > > mnt->user = current->fsuid, then for the special case we > > > > pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a > > > > place to

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Alan Cox
> Preventive measures are taken to limit only one continuation inode per > file per chunk. This can be done easily in the chunk allocation > algorithm for disk space. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by How are you handling the allocation in this situation, are you assuming that a chun

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jeff Dike
On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:53:16AM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > Jeff Dike wrote: > >How about this case: > > > > Growing file starts in chunk A. > > Overflows into chunk B. > > Delete file in chunk A. > > Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in > >chunk A (and nothing

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Amit Gud
Jeff Dike wrote: How about this case: Growing file starts in chunk A. Overflows into chunk B. Delete file in chunk A. Growing file overflows chunk B and spots new free space in chunk A (and nothing anywhere else) Overflows into chunk A Delete file

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Miklos Szeredi
> Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > > Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do > > > mnt->user = current->fsuid, then for the special case we > > > pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a > > > place to do that? Would it be a no-no to use 'data' for > > >

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jeff Dike
On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 03:47:10PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > Actually, there is an upper limit on the number of continuation > inodes. Each file can have a maximum of one continuation inode per > chunk. (This is why we need to support sparse files.) How about this case: Growing file

Re: [patch] unprivileged mounts update

2007-04-26 Thread Serge E. Hallyn
Quoting Miklos Szeredi ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > > Right, I figure if the normal action is to always do > > mnt->user = current->fsuid, then for the special case we > > pass a uid in someplace. Of course... do we not have a > > place to do that? Would it be a no-no to use 'data' for > > a non-fs-sp

[RFC][PATCH 2/4] Move the file data to the new blocks

2007-04-26 Thread Takashi Sato
Move the blocks on the temporary inode to the original inode by a page. 1. Read the file data from the old blocks to the page 2. Move the block on the temporary inode to the original inode 3. Write the file data on the page into the new blocks Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- di

[RFC][PATCH 3/4] Online defrag command

2007-04-26 Thread Takashi Sato
The defrag command. Usage is as follows: o Put the multiple files closer together. # e4defrag -r directory-name o Defrag for a single file. # e4defrag file-name o Defrag for all files on ext4. # e4defrag device-name Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- /* * e4defrag, ext4 fi

ext4 online defrag (ver 0.4)

2007-04-26 Thread Takashi Sato
Hi all, I have made following changes to the previous online defrag patchset to improve it. Note that there is no functional change. 1. Change the handling of temporary inode. Now ext4_ext_defrag() calls ext4_new_inode()/iput() pair instead of new_inode()/delete_ext_defrag_inode(). Because

[RFC][PATCH 4/4] ext4_locality_group bug fix

2007-04-26 Thread Takashi Sato
Move lg_list to s_locality_dirty and mark lg as dirty if nr_to_write(total page count which has not written in disk yet) is 0 or less and lg_io is not empty in ext4_lg_sync_single_group(). This makes sure that inode is written to disk. Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --- diff -Nru

[RFC][PATCH 1/4] Allocate new contiguous blocks

2007-04-26 Thread Takashi Sato
Search contiguous free blocks with Alex's mutil-block allocation and allocate them for the temporary inode. This patch applies on top of Alex's patches. "[RFC] delayed allocation, mballoc, etc" http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-ext4&m=116493228301966&w=2 Signed-off-by: Takashi Sato <[EMAIL PR

Re: [RFC][PATCH] ChunkFS: fs fission for faster fsck

2007-04-26 Thread Jan Kara
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2007 at 08:54:34PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 04:53:11PM -0500, Amit Gud wrote: > > > -- -- > > > | cnode 0 |-->| cnode 0 |--> to another cnode or NULL > > > -- -- > > > |