In message <1064260935.3f6f55477ef6f@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, chrisl_ext3_user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes: > > > From Erez Zadok <ezk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on 22 Sep 2003: > > > Now, it's quite possible that we're not doing something right in > > versionfs > > which messes ext3 up. We're unable to tickle this assertion directly > > That is very possible. Do you mind show me the related versionfs code? > Ext3 need to reserve the number of block it need to modify on creating > the the transaction. > > If your versionfs dirty some block, which I think it will, it need > to reserved the extra blocks in ext3_journal_start(). > > Without doing so can result in the problem you describe. > > > 1. Are there any more known ext3 bugs of the sort that have been > > reported? > > If so, are there fixes anywhere? (We didn't see anything new wrt > > ext3 in > > the 2.4.23-pre series.) > > I think there is a good chance you did not reserved it right. > > > > > FWIW, we're managed to narrow down the problem to the area in our code > > that > > uses the sendfile functionality. We use sendfile inside our file system > > to > > make a copy of a file before it'd be modified, for versioning purposes. > > Again, I would like to take a look at your related versionfs change. > > BTW, you might want to post on ext2-devel as well. > > Regards, > > Chris Thanks Chris. We had to first understand what these buffer_credits are. And we believe we may have fixed the problem (preliminary tests no longer tickle the problem). This was due to the way we were nesting another file creation+write (for the version file) inside a normal prepare/commit write. I'll let my student Akshat post a more detailed explanation of the fix's hypothesis. Erez. _______________________________________________ Ext3-users@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/ext3-users
