Hi Ted,
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 04:02:20PM -0700, Krister Johansen wrote:
> Hi Ted,
>
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 07:11:31PM -0700, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 12:22:39AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> > > As far as your patch is concerned, resize2fs can do both off-line
> > > (unmounted) and on-line (mounted) resizes. And turning direct I/O
> > > unconditionally isn't a great idea for off-line resizes --- it will
> > > really trash the performance of the resize.
> >
> > Thanks for the additional detail.
> >
> > I also double-checked to make sure these systems had the following patch
> > applied:
> >
> > 05c2c00f3769 ext4: protect superblock modifications with a buffer lock
> >
> > And they do. Not sure if that's directly applicable to the online
> > resize case though.
> >
> > > Does this patch work for you instead?
> >
> > Thanks, it does!
> >
> > > diff --git a/resize/main.c b/resize/main.c
> > > index 94f5ec6d..f914c050 100644
> > > --- a/resize/main.c
> > > +++ b/resize/main.c
> > > @@ -409,6 +409,8 @@ int main (int argc, char ** argv)
> > >
> > > if (!(mount_flags & EXT2_MF_MOUNTED) && !print_min_size)
> > > io_flags = EXT2_FLAG_RW | EXT2_FLAG_EXCLUSIVE;
> > > + if (mount_flags & EXT2_MF_MOUNTED)
> > > + io_flags |= EXT2_FLAG_DIRECT_IO;
> > >
> > > io_flags |= EXT2_FLAG_64BITS | EXT2_FLAG_THREADS;
> > > if (undo_file) {
> >
> > If it counts:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Krister Johansen <kjlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Tested-by: Krister Johansen <kjlx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Just wanted to check back on this. Should I send a v2 that incorporates
> the changes you suggested above?
I've been running this patch on our production systems for the past
couple of months and haven't had any re-occurence of the bad superblock
checksum error. It used to occur a few times a day.
Is there anything more I can do to help get this accepted into
e2fsprogs?
Thanks very much,
-K
