On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 11:48:13AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Rounding in xfs_alloc_fix_len() is wrong. As the comment states, the
> result should be a number of a form (k*prod+mod) however due to sign
> mistake the result is different. As a result allocations on raid arrays
> could be misaligned in some cases.
>
> This also seems to fix occasional assertion failure:
> XFS_WANT_CORRUPTED_GOTO(rlen <= flen, error0)
> in xfs_alloc_ag_vextent_size().
>
Do you happen to have a reproducer for this?
The meaning of args->prod (the structure definition comment calls it the
prod value) is not clear to me. I see that we set it to an extent
size hint if one exists (in xfs_bmap_btalloc()), so I'll go with that.
args->mod then becomes the modulo of the file offset against that
alignment hint.
> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c | 14 ++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
> index c1cf6a336a72..6a0281b16451 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_alloc.c
> @@ -257,14 +257,12 @@ xfs_alloc_fix_len(
We get here and take the extent length, mod against the alignment and
compare to the mod of the offset.
> k = rlen % args->prod;
> if (k == args->mod)
> return;
> - if (k > args->mod) {
> - if ((int)(rlen = rlen - k - args->mod) < (int)args->minlen)
> - return;
> - } else {
> - if ((int)(rlen = rlen - args->prod - (args->mod - k)) <
> - (int)args->minlen)
> - return;
> - }
> + if (k > args->mod)
> + rlen = rlen - (k - args->mod);
If the length mod is greater than the offset mod, reduce the length by
the delta of the mods.
> + else
> + rlen = rlen - args->prod + (args->mod - k);
Otherwise (length mod is less than offset mod), reduce by a full
alignment size and add back the difference to match the offset mod.
This seems correct to me.
> + if ((int)rlen < (int)args->minlen)
> + return;
> ASSERT(rlen >= args->minlen);
> ASSERT(rlen <= args->maxlen);
The rlen >= minlen assert seems kind of pointless here, but what about
changing both instances of these two asserts to the following:
ASSERT(rlen >= args->minlen && rlen <= args->maxlen);
... and add a new one after the length adjustment along the lines of:
ASSERT((rlen % args->prod) == args->mod);
Thoughts? Would this have caught the problem you've found earlier?
Brian
> args->len = rlen;
> --
> 1.8.1.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
