Hi all,
I am seeing the below error in the console. But the tests are reported
as success.
EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204044: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204045: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204047: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204056: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204061: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204065: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204068: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204069: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204071: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
#204077: invalid magic -
-aneesh
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am seeing the below error in the console. But the tests are reported
> as success.
>
> EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204044: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204045: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204047: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204056: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204061: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204065: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204068: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204069: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204071: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
> #204077: invalid magic -
>
Hi Aneesh,
I've got also several issues while running ffsb tests today. The tests
ended with success but e2fsck reported an error:
Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
Inode 3367164, i_size is 57380864, should be 57442304. Fix?
Inode 3367164 is allocated in the last group of the filesystem.
As I changed the allocation algorithm for the last group in the patch
"ext4_fix_block_alloc_algorithm_for_last_group.patch", I removed this
patch and ran again the same test. I didn't reproduce the issue.
*But* I reproduced it on a filesystem created with a smaller block size
value (= 1024 instead of 4096 previously) and with a kernel *without*
my patch applied. e2fsck reports the same error on inodes created in the
last group. Sometimes in this configuration, error messages are also
displayed on the console:
EXT4-fs error (device sdc): ext4_valid_block_bitmap: Invalid block bitmap -
block_group = 7358, block = 60276737
EXT4-fs error (device sdc): ext4_valid_block_bitmap: Invalid block bitmap -
block_group = 7358, block = 60276737
and e2fsck reports errors like:
Inode 2113777 has corrupt extent index at block 61165699 (logical -1) entry 0
Fix?
So, there is a problem when allocating inodes in the last group:
- without my patch when block size value is 1024,
- with my patch when block size value is 4096.
Could you check if your tests allocate inodes in the last group and run
also e2fsck to see if it reports errors.
For the moment, I have no idea how to fix that problem.
Valerie
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 06:15:01PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am seeing the below error in the console. But the tests are reported
>> as success.
>>
>> EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204044: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204045: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204047: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204056: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204061: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204065: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204068: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204069: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204071: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204077: invalid magic -
>>
The above problem is due to symlink having extent flag set but not
having extent tree initialized. That was mainly due to inheriting the
inode i_flag from parent directory. I am right now testing fix for this.
> Hi Aneesh,
>
> I've got also several issues while running ffsb tests today. The tests
> ended with success but e2fsck reported an error:
>
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Inode 3367164, i_size is 57380864, should be 57442304. Fix?
>
> Inode 3367164 is allocated in the last group of the filesystem.
>
> As I changed the allocation algorithm for the last group in the patch
> "ext4_fix_block_alloc_algorithm_for_last_group.patch", I removed this
> patch and ran again the same test. I didn't reproduce the issue.
>
> *But* I reproduced it on a filesystem created with a smaller block size
> value (= 1024 instead of 4096 previously) and with a kernel *without*
> my patch applied. e2fsck reports the same error on inodes created in the
> last group. Sometimes in this configuration, error messages are also
> displayed on the console:
>
> EXT4-fs error (device sdc): ext4_valid_block_bitmap: Invalid block bitmap
> - block_group = 7358, block = 60276737
> EXT4-fs error (device sdc): ext4_valid_block_bitmap: Invalid block bitmap
> - block_group = 7358, block = 60276737
>
> and e2fsck reports errors like:
> Inode 2113777 has corrupt extent index at block 61165699 (logical -1) entry 0
> Fix?
>
> So, there is a problem when allocating inodes in the last group:
> - without my patch when block size value is 1024,
> - with my patch when block size value is 4096.
>
> Could you check if your tests allocate inodes in the last group and run
> also e2fsck to see if it reports errors.
>
> For the moment, I have no idea how to fix that problem.
>
This looks like a completely different problem. Will try to see if i can
reproduce it here.
-aneesh
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 06:15:01PM +0100, Valerie Clement wrote:
> Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I am seeing the below error in the console. But the tests are reported
>> as success.
>>
>> EXT4-fs: mballoc enabled
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204044: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204045: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204047: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204056: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204061: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204065: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204068: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204069: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204071: invalid magic - magic 0, entries 0, max 0(0), depth 0(0)
>> EXT4-fs error (device sda7): ext4_ext_find_extent: bad header in inode
>> #204077: invalid magic -
>>
> Hi Aneesh,
>
> I've got also several issues while running ffsb tests today. The tests
> ended with success but e2fsck reported an error:
>
> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
> Inode 3367164, i_size is 57380864, should be 57442304. Fix?
>
> Inode 3367164 is allocated in the last group of the filesystem.
>
> As I changed the allocation algorithm for the last group in the patch
> "ext4_fix_block_alloc_algorithm_for_last_group.patch", I removed this
> patch and ran again the same test. I didn't reproduce the issue.
>
> *But* I reproduced it on a filesystem created with a smaller block size
> value (= 1024 instead of 4096 previously) and with a kernel *without*
> my patch applied. e2fsck reports the same error on inodes created in the
> last group. Sometimes in this configuration, error messages are also
> displayed on the console:
>
> EXT4-fs error (device sdc): ext4_valid_block_bitmap: Invalid block bitmap
> - block_group = 7358, block = 60276737
> EXT4-fs error (device sdc): ext4_valid_block_bitmap: Invalid block bitmap
> - block_group = 7358, block = 60276737
>
> and e2fsck reports errors like:
> Inode 2113777 has corrupt extent index at block 61165699 (logical -1) entry 0
> Fix?
>
> So, there is a problem when allocating inodes in the last group:
> - without my patch when block size value is 1024,
> - with my patch when block size value is 4096.
>
> Could you check if your tests allocate inodes in the last group and run
> also e2fsck to see if it reports errors.
>
>
Can you run the test with the below patch on top of stable series.
diff --git a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
index d2c2e55..14fb73b 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/ialloc.c
@@ -794,7 +794,12 @@ got:
ei->i_dir_start_lookup = 0;
ei->i_disksize = 0;
- ei->i_flags = EXT4_I(dir)->i_flags & ~EXT4_INDEX_FL;
+ /*
+ * Don't inherit extent flag from directory. We set extent flag on
+ * newly created directory and file only if -o extent mount option is
+ * specfied
+ */
+ ei->i_flags = EXT4_I(dir)->i_flags & ~ (EXT4_INDEX_FL|EXT4_EXTENTS_FL);
if (S_ISLNK(mode))
ei->i_flags &= ~(EXT4_IMMUTABLE_FL|EXT4_APPEND_FL);
/* dirsync only applies to directories */
@@ -836,13 +841,16 @@ got:
ext4_std_error(sb, err);
goto fail_free_drop;
}
- if (test_opt(sb, EXTENTS) && !S_ISLNK(mode)) {
- EXT4_I(inode)->i_flags |= EXT4_EXTENTS_FL;
- ext4_ext_tree_init(handle, inode);
- err = ext4_update_incompat_feature(handle, sb,
- EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EXTENTS);
- if (err)
- goto fail;
+ if (test_opt(sb, EXTENTS)) {
+ /* set extent flag only for diretory and file */
+ if (S_ISDIR(mode) || S_ISREG(mode)) {
+ EXT4_I(inode)->i_flags |= EXT4_EXTENTS_FL;
+ ext4_ext_tree_init(handle, inode);
+ err = ext4_update_incompat_feature(handle, sb,
+ EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_EXTENTS);
+ if (err)
+ goto fail;
+ }
}
ext4_debug("allocating inode %lu\n", inode->i_ino);
diff --git a/fs/ext4/namei.c b/fs/ext4/namei.c
index 23902ba..da942bc 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/namei.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/namei.c
@@ -1771,7 +1771,6 @@ retry:
#ifdef CONFIG_EXT4DEV_FS_XATTR
inode->i_op = &ext4_special_inode_operations;
#endif
- EXT4_I(inode)->i_flags &= ~EXT4_EXTENTS_FL;
err = ext4_add_nondir(handle, dentry, inode);
}
ext4_journal_stop(handle);
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> I've got also several issues while running ffsb tests today. The tests
>> ended with success but e2fsck reported an error:
>>
>> Pass 1: Checking inodes, blocks, and sizes
>> Inode 3367164, i_size is 57380864, should be 57442304. Fix?
>>
>> Inode 3367164 is allocated in the last group of the filesystem.
>>
>> As I changed the allocation algorithm for the last group in the patch
>> "ext4_fix_block_alloc_algorithm_for_last_group.patch", I removed this
>> patch and ran again the same test. I didn't reproduce the issue.
>>
>> *But* I reproduced it on a filesystem created with a smaller block size
>> value (= 1024 instead of 4096 previously) and with a kernel *without*
>> my patch applied. e2fsck reports the same error on inodes created in the
>> last group. Sometimes in this configuration, error messages are also
>> displayed on the console:
>>
>> EXT4-fs error (device sdc): ext4_valid_block_bitmap: Invalid block bitmap
>> - block_group = 7358, block = 60276737
>> EXT4-fs error (device sdc): ext4_valid_block_bitmap: Invalid block bitmap
>> - block_group = 7358, block = 60276737
>>
>> and e2fsck reports errors like:
>> Inode 2113777 has corrupt extent index at block 61165699 (logical -1) entry 0
>> Fix?
>>
>> So, there is a problem when allocating inodes in the last group:
>> - without my patch when block size value is 1024,
>> - with my patch when block size value is 4096.
>>
>> Could you check if your tests allocate inodes in the last group and run
>> also e2fsck to see if it reports errors.
>>
>> For the moment, I have no idea how to fix that problem.
>>
>
> This looks like a completely different problem. Will try to see if i can
> reproduce it here.
OK, thanks a lot.
FYI I also reproduced it with 4096 block size when configuring 16000
blocks per group (instead of 32768 per default) when my patch is
not applied.
Valerie