From: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
When I run a test application on ext4 of bigalloc, and also a daemon
which run "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" every 2 seconds,
the kernel report:
15319.557145] EXT4-fs error (device sda4): ext4_valid_block_bitmap:324: comm dir_tree: Invalid block bitmap - block_group = 6, block = 3145730
The reason is ext4_valied_block_bitmap has not be modified for cluster.
Signed-off-by: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <[email protected]>
---
fs/ext4/balloc.c | 13 ++++++++-----
1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/balloc.c b/fs/ext4/balloc.c
index 23a6375..8b982fc 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/balloc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/balloc.c
@@ -282,6 +282,7 @@ static int ext4_valid_block_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
ext4_grpblk_t next_zero_bit;
ext4_fsblk_t bitmap_blk;
ext4_fsblk_t group_first_block;
+ struct ext4_sb_info *sbi = EXT4_SB(sb);
if (EXT4_HAS_INCOMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_FLEX_BG)) {
/* with FLEX_BG, the inode/block bitmaps and itable
@@ -297,14 +298,14 @@ static int ext4_valid_block_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
/* check whether block bitmap block number is set */
bitmap_blk = ext4_block_bitmap(sb, desc);
offset = bitmap_blk - group_first_block;
- if (!ext4_test_bit(offset, bh->b_data))
+ if (!ext4_test_bit(EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset), bh->b_data))
/* bad block bitmap */
goto err_out;
/* check whether the inode bitmap block number is set */
bitmap_blk = ext4_inode_bitmap(sb, desc);
offset = bitmap_blk - group_first_block;
- if (!ext4_test_bit(offset, bh->b_data))
+ if (!ext4_test_bit(EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset), bh->b_data))
/* bad block bitmap */
goto err_out;
@@ -312,9 +313,11 @@ static int ext4_valid_block_bitmap(struct super_block *sb,
bitmap_blk = ext4_inode_table(sb, desc);
offset = bitmap_blk - group_first_block;
next_zero_bit = ext4_find_next_zero_bit(bh->b_data,
- offset + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_itb_per_group,
- offset);
- if (next_zero_bit >= offset + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_itb_per_group)
+ EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_itb_per_group),
+ EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset));
+
+ if (next_zero_bit >=
+ EXT4_B2C(sbi, offset + EXT4_SB(sb)->s_itb_per_group))
/* good bitmap for inode tables */
return 1;
--
1.7.3.2
From: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
The argument "save_blocks_count" and the block bitmap has the unit of cluster,
so it don't need EXT2FS_C2B to convert argument "i".
This patch is based on "next" branch of e2fsprogs.
Signed-off-by: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
Cc: Ted Ts'o <[email protected]>
---
e2fsck/pass5.c | 6 ++----
1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/e2fsck/pass5.c b/e2fsck/pass5.c
index f9d746c..bb2a4dd 100644
--- a/e2fsck/pass5.c
+++ b/e2fsck/pass5.c
@@ -763,12 +763,10 @@ static void check_block_end(e2fsck_t ctx)
/* Protect loop from wrap-around if end is maxed */
for (i = save_blocks_count + 1; i <= end && i > save_blocks_count; i++) {
- if (!ext2fs_test_block_bitmap2(fs->block_map,
- EXT2FS_C2B(fs, i))) {
+ if (!ext2fs_test_block_bitmap2(fs->block_map, i)) {
if (fix_problem(ctx, PR_5_BLOCK_BMAP_PADDING, &pctx)) {
for (; i <= end; i++)
- ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap2(fs->block_map,
- EXT2FS_C2B(fs, i));
+ ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap2(fs->block_map, i);
ext2fs_mark_bb_dirty(fs);
} else
ext2fs_unmark_valid(fs);
--
1.7.3.2
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 11:48:02AM +0800, Robin Dong wrote:
> From: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
>
> The argument "save_blocks_count" and the block bitmap has the unit of cluster,
> so it don't need EXT2FS_C2B to convert argument "i".
>
> This patch is based on "next" branch of e2fsprogs.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ted Ts'o <[email protected]>
No, I don't think this is right. Regardless of whether the unit of
the block bitmap is cluster- or block- (only while mke2fs is running,
and only initially) based, the argument to
ext2fs_{test,mark,unmark}_block_bitmap is always in blocks.
That's why the EXT2FS_C2B is necessary.
- Ted
On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 11:48:01AM +0800, Robin Dong wrote:
> From: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
>
> When I run a test application on ext4 of bigalloc, and also a daemon
> which run "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" every 2 seconds,
> the kernel report:
>
> 15319.557145] EXT4-fs error (device sda4): ext4_valid_block_bitmap:324: comm dir_tree: Invalid block bitmap - block_group = 6, block = 3145730
>
> The reason is ext4_valied_block_bitmap has not be modified for cluster.
>
> Signed-off-by: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
> Cc: Ted Ts'o <[email protected]>
Yep, this looks like a bug --- I'm curious, though --- this is
something I don't run into because I use mke2fs -t ext4 which sets the
flex_bg feature. Is there some reason you're not using flex_bg on
your file systems?
- Ted
2011/8/11 Ted Ts'o <[email protected]>:
> On Thu, Aug 04, 2011 at 11:48:02AM +0800, Robin Dong wrote:
>> From: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
>>
>> The argument "save_blocks_count" and the block bitmap has the unit of cluster,
>> so it don't need EXT2FS_C2B to convert argument "i".
>>
>> This patch is based on "next" branch of e2fsprogs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Robin Dong <[email protected]>
>> Cc: Ted Ts'o <[email protected]>
>
> No, I don't think this is right. ?Regardless of whether the unit of
> the block bitmap is cluster- or block- (only while mke2fs is running,
> and only initially) based, the argument to
> ext2fs_{test,mark,unmark}_block_bitmap is always in blocks.
>
> That's why the EXT2FS_C2B is necessary.
>
> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?- Ted
>
Hi, Ted
Last week I did some wrecking-case to test e2fsck ("next" branch) and
find a error in it:
1. misc/mke2fs -m 0 -O
^has_journal,^resize_inode,^uninit_bg,bigalloc,extent,meta_bg,flex_bg
/dev/sda4
2. copy some file into /dev/sda4
3. set an inode's mode to zero
4. e2fsck -f /dev/sda4
it report something like:
e2fsck 1.42-WIP (02-Jul-2011)
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Inode 314, i_blocks is 128, should be 0. Fix<y>? yes
Pass 2: Checking directory structure
Inode 314 (/c/3) has invalid mode (00).
Clear<y>? yes
Pass 3: Checking directory connectivity
Pass 4: Checking reference counts
Pass 5: Checking group summary information
Block bitmap differences: -529632
Fix<y>? yes
Free blocks count wrong for group #1 (32267, counted=32268).
Fix<y>? yes
Free blocks count wrong (13838736, counted=13838752).
Fix<y>? yes
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_test_block_bitmap #13874128 for
converted cluster bitmap
Padding at end of block bitmap is not set. Fix<y>? yes
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap #13874128 for
converted cluster bitmap
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap #13874144 for
converted cluster bitmap
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap #13874160 for
converted cluster bitmap
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap #13874176 for
converted cluster bitmap
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap #13874192 for
converted cluster bitmap
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap #13874208 for
converted cluster bitmap
Illegal block number passed to ext2fs_mark_block_bitmap #13874224 for
converted cluster bitmap
.......
my disk has just 13874128 4k-blocks, so the block number must have
some problems.
So I doubt at the check_block_end in pass5.c.
Could you please shed some light on it?
--
--
Best Regard
Robin Dong