From: Tao Ma Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: Protect group inode free counting with group lock. Date: Thu, 17 May 2012 10:17:34 +0800 Message-ID: <4FB45FBE.10004@tao.ma> References: <1337158192-4591-1-git-send-email-tm@tao.ma> <4FB3AF00.9060704@redhat.com> <4FB3BFC9.20901@tao.ma> <4FB3CC8C.4030502@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o To: Eric Sandeen Return-path: Received: from oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com ([67.222.38.55]:38024 "HELO oproxy5-pub.bluehost.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S1760826Ab2EQCRi (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2012 22:17:38 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4FB3CC8C.4030502@redhat.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/16/2012 11:49 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 5/16/12 9:55 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >> On 05/16/2012 09:43 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 5/16/12 3:49 AM, Tao Ma wrote: >>>> From: Tao Ma >>>> >>>> Now when we set the group inode free count, we don't have a proper >>>> group lock so that multiple threads may decrease the inode free >>>> count at the same time. And e2fsck will complain something like: >>> >>> This is only in the ! EXT4_FEATURE_RO_COMPAT_GDT_CSUM case I guess? >>> That would be worth mentioning in the summary & changelog. >> sure, I will add it in v2. >>> >>> I guess you were testing without that for some reason? >> See my comments below. I found it when running xfstests 269. > > Still not sure how you got a filesystem w/o that feature though, unless > I am forgetting something obvious. Isn't it on by default? oh, I see. Yes, we mkfs the system with the following configurations: mke2fs -O ^resize_inode,^uninit_bg,extent,meta_bg,flex_bg,ext_attr Maybe that's the reason why it has never be met by others before. ;) Thanks Tao