2.6.31-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. ------------------ (cherry picked from commit 7ad9bb651fc2036ea94bed94da76a4b08959a911) 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" Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman --- fs/ext4/super.c | 12 ++++++------ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) --- a/fs/ext4/super.c +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c @@ -1696,12 +1696,12 @@ static int ext4_fill_flex_info(struct su 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; -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/