linux-ext4 - Re: Use of kmalloc vs vmalloc in ext4?

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20090426021220.GB10248@mit.edu>
Date:	Sat, 25 Apr 2009 22:12:20 -0400
From:	Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To:	Michael Rubin <mrubin@...gle.com>
Cc:	Curt Wohlgemuth <curtw@...gle.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Use of kmalloc vs vmalloc in ext4?

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 11:39:55PM -0400, Theodore Tso wrote:
> P.S.   What sort of flex_bg size are you using?
> 
>           EXT4-fs: not enough memory for 8198 flex groups
>           EXT4-fs: unable to initialize flex_bg meta info!
> 
> Modern e2fsprogs default to using 16 block groups per flex_bg, which
> means 8198 flex groups is a little over 16 TB --- which the mainline
> e2fsprogs doesn't support yet.  You wouldn't be using a smaller
> flex_bg size for some reason, are you?

Oh, never mind.  I didn't realize this last night, but we allocate
sbi->s_flex_counts so it is big enough in case the filesystem gets
resized to the maximum size.  So that's why it was trying to allocate
that many flex groups.  On the other hand, it means that it's much
more likely for us to need the extra memory.

							- 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