From: Yongqiang Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] resize2fs: fix overhead calculation for meta_bg file systems Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 09:59:55 +0800 Message-ID: References: <20120903164525.GD5066@thunk.org> <1346690758-21072-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> <1346690758-21072-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Ext4 Developers List , "Theodore Ts'o" To: Kevin Liao Return-path: Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f46.google.com ([209.85.215.46]:55281 "EHLO mail-lpp01m010-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754388Ab2IDCAS (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 Sep 2012 22:00:18 -0400 Received: by lagy9 with SMTP id y9so3863144lag.19 for ; Mon, 03 Sep 2012 19:00:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <1346690758-21072-2-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Kevin, Ted has sent out the patches on online resizing for meta_bg and 64bits, so you can have a try again. It seems that the bug in e2fsprogs has been fixed. Yongqiang. On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > The file system overhead calculation in calculate_minimum_resize_size > was incorrect meta_bg file systems. This caused the minimum size to > underflow for very large file systems, which threw resize2fs into a > loop generally lasted longer than the user's patience. > > Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" > --- > resize/resize2fs.c | 25 ++++++++++++++++++++++++- > 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/resize/resize2fs.c b/resize/resize2fs.c > index dc2805d..1dce498 100644 > --- a/resize/resize2fs.c > +++ b/resize/resize2fs.c > @@ -1890,6 +1890,8 @@ blk64_t calculate_minimum_resize_size(ext2_filsys fs) > blk64_t grp, data_needed, last_start; > blk64_t overhead = 0; > int num_of_superblocks = 0; > + blk64_t super_overhead = 0; > + int old_desc_blocks; > int extra_groups = 0; > int flexbg_size = 1 << fs->super->s_log_groups_per_flex; > > @@ -1909,15 +1911,36 @@ blk64_t calculate_minimum_resize_size(ext2_filsys fs) > * we need to figure out how many backup superblocks we have so we can > * account for that in the metadata > */ > + if (fs->super->s_feature_incompat & EXT2_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_META_BG) > + old_desc_blocks = fs->super->s_first_meta_bg; > + else > + old_desc_blocks = fs->desc_blocks + > + fs->super->s_reserved_gdt_blocks; > + > for (grp = 0; grp < fs->group_desc_count; grp++) { > + blk64_t super_blk, old_desc_blk, new_desc_blk; > + int has_super; > + > + ext2fs_super_and_bgd_loc2(fs, grp, &super_blk, > + &old_desc_blk, &new_desc_blk, 0); > + has_super = ((grp == 0) || super_blk); > + if (has_super) > + super_overhead++; > + if (old_desc_blk) > + super_overhead += old_desc_blocks; > + else if (new_desc_blk) > + super_overhead++; > if (ext2fs_bg_has_super(fs, grp)) > num_of_superblocks++; > + > } > + printf("super overhead is %llu, old algorithm was %llu\n", > + super_overhead, SUPER_OVERHEAD(fs) * num_of_superblocks); > > /* calculate how many blocks are needed for data */ > data_needed = ext2fs_blocks_count(fs->super) - > ext2fs_free_blocks_count(fs->super); > - data_needed -= SUPER_OVERHEAD(fs) * num_of_superblocks; > + data_needed -= super_overhead; > data_needed -= META_OVERHEAD(fs) * fs->group_desc_count; > > if (fs->super->s_feature_incompat & EXT4_FEATURE_INCOMPAT_FLEX_BG) { > -- > 1.7.12.rc0.22.gcdd159b > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- Best Wishes Yongqiang Yang