Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Dmitry Monakhov wrote: >> If we have failed some where inside ext4_get_blocks() internals we may >> have allocated some new blocks, which was not yet claimed to quota. >> We have to free such blocks, but without touching quota. Quota will >> be updated later on exit from ext4_get_blocks(). >> There are two possible ways to understand what we have to skip quota update: >> 1) Caller pass corresponding flag to ext4_free_blocks() >> 2) check that free_blocks() was indirectly called by get_blocks() >> (i.e EXT4_I(inode)->i_delalloc_reserved_flag is set) >> Second is simpler, but may result in unpredictable consequences later. >> So i've chosen the first one, because caller must know which blocks it >> is freeing. >> >> Eric, please take your attention to metadata blocks handling when >> you will work on new versing of "ext4: don't use quota reservation for >> speculative metadata blocks" patch. >> >> The bug happens on heavily loaded node, or with 227'th xfstestcase and > > hm which test? 227 is xfs-only... Oh.. it has that number at the time i've posted it, and it wasn't merged yet. http://marc.info/?l=linux-ext4&m=127124399930095&w=2 You have already requested some cleanups, so i'll post new version, under new number, soon. > > -Eric > >> result in incorrect i_blocks (less than expected). So truncation for >> that file result in i_blocks overflow. >> Seems this was the last bug which was easily triggered by 227'th testcase. >> >> -- 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
