[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-id: <20080214221317.GP3029@webber.adilger.int>
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:13:17 -0700
From: Andreas Dilger <adilger@....com>
To: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Aneesh Kumar <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Mingming Cao <cmm@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] ext4: Fix kernel BUG at fs/ext4/mballoc.c:910!
On Feb 14, 2008 17:35 +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> From: Valerie Clement <valerie.clement@...l.net>
>
> With the flex_bg feature enabled, a large file creation oopses the
> kernel.
> The BUG_ON is:
> BUG_ON(len >= EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(sb));
>
> As the allocation of the bitmaps and the inode table can be done
> outside the block group with flex_bg, this allows to allocate up to
> EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP blocks in a group.
> Depending on the group size and the block size, extents might be
> larger than BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(); use EXT_INIT_MAX_LEN instead of
> BLOCKS_PER_GROUP().
In fact, my earlier review of this patch was incorrect, and Aneesh pointed
out the correct answer. The ext4_mb_mark_free_simple() function is only
called from ext4_mb_generate_buddy() to generate the buddy bitmap from the
on-disk block bitmap, and in that case the @len parameter should always
be <= EXT4_BLOCKS_PER_GROUP(). I think the original patch was correct.
Sorry about the confusion. I thought at first glance this was for
freeing the blocks from releasing an extent, but that is incorrect.
Cheers, Andreas
--
Andreas Dilger
Sr. Staff Engineer, Lustre Group
Sun Microsystems of Canada, Inc.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists