[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090217220029.GS23758@mini-me.lan>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 17:00:29 -0500
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>
Cc: Andres Freund <andres@...razel.de>,
Alex Buell <alex.buell@...ted.org.uk>, adilger@....com,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Jonathan Bastien-Filiatrault <joe@....org>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: EXT4 ENOSPC Bug
On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 02:08:21PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> FWIW my problem seems to be different than others have encountered; mine
> persists past reboot, while other reporters have said that a reboot
> (remount) makes the problem go away.
It might or might not be the same problem, since the reporters were
doing this on a mounted root partition, and on a filesystem quite a
bit larger than your test filesystem; so it could be that the act of
shutting down and rebooting created/deleted various pid files, and
purturbed the filesystem to make the problem go away.
The other possibility is that it is the flex_bg specific counters
which were introduced specifically for find_group_flex. I'm not wild
about them since they mean we have to take an extra flex_bg specific
spin lock for every block and inode allocation. The Orlov algorithm
only needs the information when allocating directories, and since
those are rarer than file allocations, I think it should be OK to
simply sum up the necessary fields at directory allocation time
instead of trying to maintain separate counters (which could possibly
get corrupted, although I couldn't see a way that they could be
getting out of sync with reality).
- Ted
--
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