On Aug 18, 2009 07:57 -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > As a heads up, I'm seeing a rare xfsqa test failure with the stable > portion of the ext4 patch queue; it doesn't hit all the time, but when > it does, i_size is corrupted: > > Inode 22047, i_size is 922788, should be 942080. Fix? > > 922788/4096 is 225 plus a fraction, while 942080/4096 is 230. The > debugfs information is as follows: > > debugfs: stat <22047> > Inode: 22047 Type: regular Mode: 0666 Flags: 0x80000 > Generation: 3536075281 Version: 0x00000000:00000001 > User: 0 Group: 0 Size: 922788 > File ACL: 0 Directory ACL: 0 > Links: 1 Blockcount: 1320 > Fragment: Address: 0 Number: 0 Size: 0 > ctime: 0x4a8a953b:546bc3d4 -- Tue Aug 18 07:49:15 2009 > atime: 0x4a8a953b:29927210 -- Tue Aug 18 07:49:15 2009 > mtime: 0x4a8a953b:546bc3d4 -- Tue Aug 18 07:49:15 2009 > crtime: 0x4a8a951c:5ac789dc -- Tue Aug 18 07:48:44 2009 > Size of extra inode fields: 28 > EXTENTS: > (65-80): 60720-60735, (81-222 [uninit]): 1181574-1181715, (223-229): 1181716-118 > 1722 > debugfs: > > So it looks like there's a race which can cause ext4 to somehow miss an > i_size update. Are you sure it is a failure to update i_size, or is it possibly an fallocate that extends the block count beyond i_size? 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
