Hi,
I am off my working computer. Maybe below fix could fix the problem.
fs/ext4/extent.c
static int ext4_ext_walk_space(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t block,
1877 } else if (block >= le32_to_cpu(ex->ee_block)) {
1878 /*
1879 * some part of requested space is covered
1880 * by found extent
1881 */
1882 start = block;
1883 end = le32_to_cpu(ex->ee_block)
1884 + ext4_ext_get_actual_len(ex);
1885 if (block + num < end)
1886 end = block + num;
+ if (!ext4_ext_is_uninitialized(ex))
1887 exists = 1;
1888 } else {
1889 BUG();
1890 }
On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:04 AM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 2011/4/14 Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
>> On 4/14/11 10:52 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>> On 14/04/11 16:50, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>> On 4/14/11 9:59 AM, Pádraig Brady wrote:
>>>>> On 14/04/11 15:02, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Pádraig,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> here you go:
>>>>>>>> + filefrag -v unwritten.withdata
>>>>>>>> Filesystem type is: ef53
>>>>>>>> File size of unwritten.withdata is 5120 (2 blocks, blocksize 4096)
>>>>>>>> ext logical physical expected length flags
>>>>>>>> 0 0 274432 2560 unwritten,eof
>>>>>>>> unwritten.withdata: 1 extent found
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Please notice that this also happens with ext4 on the same kernel.
>>>>>>>> Btrfs is fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> `filefrag -vs` fixes the issue on both xfs and ext4.
>>>>>
>>>>> So in summary, currently on (2.6.39-rc3), the following
>>>>> will (usually?) report a single unwritten extent,
>>>>> on both ext4 and xfs
>>>>>
>>>>> fallocate -l 10MiB -n k
>>>>> dd count=10 if=/dev/urandom conv=notrunc iflag=fullblock of=k
>>>>> filefrag -v k # grep for an extent without unwritten || fail
>>>>
>>>> right, that's what I see too in testing.
>>>>
>>>> But would the coreutils install have done a preallocation of the destination file?
>>>>
>>>> Otherwise this looks like a different bug...
>>>>
>>>>> This particular issue has been discussed so far at:
>>>>> http://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=8411
>>>>> Note there it was stated there that ext4 had this
>>>>> fixed as of 2.6.39-rc1, so maybe there is something lurking?
>>>>
>>>> ext4 got a fix, but not xfs, I guess. My poor brain can't remember, I think I started looking into it, but it's clearly still broken.
>>>>
>>>> Still, I don't know for sure what happened to Markus - did something preallocate, in his case?
>>>
>>> Well that preallocate test is failing for him
>>> when the source file is either on ext4 or xfs.
>>> He noticed the issue initially on XFS when copying
>>> none preallocated files, so XFS probably just has
>>> the general issue of needing a sync before fiemap,
>>> where as EXT4 just has this preallocate one
>>> (though I've not seen it myself).
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Pádraig.
>>>
>>
>> well, if I simply take the preallocation step out of the testcase, it works fine on xfs without a sync.
>>
>> So I still don't know what Markus hit...
> Sorry for that my patch ignored fallocate. The situation is like this:
> An user allocated space for a file with fallocate, and write a small
> part of it. and the written is not flushed.
> The extent stays one unwritten extent in disk and memory with delayed
> allocation.
>
> In ext4 ext4_ext_walk_space() thinks an extent does not exist only if
> there is no any extents on disk. So ext4_ext_walk_space()
> thinks there is a extent and ext4_ext_fiemap_cb() thus ignores pagecache.
>
> I think ext4_ext_walk_space() should take unwritten extent not exist.
>
> Yongqiang.
>>
>> -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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Best Wishes
> Yongqiang Yang
>
--
Best Wishes
Yongqiang Yang
--
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
