Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 11:13:00PM -0600, Andreas Dilger wrote: >> On 2010-08-18, at 21:01, Theodore Ts'o wrote: >>> It looks like how we handle the EOFBLOCKS_FL flag is buggy. This means >>> that when we fallocate a file to have 128k using the KEEP_SIZE flag, and >>> then write exactly 128k, the EOFBLOCKS_FL isn't getting cleared >>> correctly. >>> >>> This is bad, because e2fsck will then complain about that inode. If you >>> have a large number of inodes that are written with fallocate using >>> KEEP_SIZE, and then fill them up to their expected size, e2fsck will >>> potentially complain about a _huge_ number of inodes. >> Probably e2fsck also shouldn't complain if EOFBLOCKS_FL is set, but >> the i_size is within the range implied by i_blocks. > > My current thinking is to have an EOFBLOCKS_relaxed mode setting in > /etc/e2fsck.conf which controls whether we test for this case or not. > Technically it *is* an error, but if there are file systems with a > large number of files in this state, running e2fsck could take a > ***very*** long time (potentially, hours longer than would otherwise > be expected). Hopefully once the bug fix gets pushed out, eventually > we'll be able to turn this feature off. (Where eventually might be a > year or two, given that it's probably too late to get this fixed in > RHEL 6. :-( ) Oh it can get fixed during rhel6's lifetime, certainly. :) Regarding a conf file setting, I'd really rather not have another knob that is non-obvious to the user. Maybe e2fsck could tally these and after I dunno, 10 or 20 or so, ask whether it should keep flagging them or just go into "yes" mode for the rest of the inodes with that problem? -Eric -- 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
