From: "Wilcox, Matthew R" Subject: RE: [PATCH v5 00/22] Rewrite XIP code and add XIP support to ext4 Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2014 12:12:43 +0000 Message-ID: <100D68C7BA14664A8938383216E40DE04061DF33@FMSMSX114.amr.corp.intel.com> References: ,<20140123090133.GR13997@dastard> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Cc: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-mm@kvack.org" , "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" To: Dave Chinner Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20140123090133.GR13997@dastard> Content-Language: en-CA Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org Are you hitting the same problems with ext4 fsck that we did? Version 1.42= .8 reports spurious corruption. From the 1.42.9 changelog:=0A= =0A= * Fixed a regression introduced in 1.42.8 which would cause e2fsck to=0A= erroneously report uninitialized extents past i_size to be invalid.=0A= =0A= ________________________________________=0A= From: Dave Chinner [david@fromorbit.com]=0A= Sent: January 23, 2014 1:01 AM=0A= To: Wilcox, Matthew R=0A= Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org; linux-mm@k= vack.org; linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org=0A= Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 00/22] Rewrite XIP code and add XIP support to ext4= =0A= =0A= On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 08:24:18PM -0500, Matthew Wilcox wrote:=0A= > This series of patches add support for XIP to ext4. Unfortunately,=0A= > it turns out to be necessary to rewrite the existing XIP support code=0A= > first due to races that are unfixable in the current design.=0A= >=0A= > Since v4 of this patchset, I've improved the documentation, fixed a=0A= > couple of warnings that a newer version of gcc emitted, and fixed a=0A= > bug where we would read/write the wrong address for I/Os that were not=0A= > aligned to PAGE_SIZE.=0A= >=0A= > I've dropped the PMD fault patch from this set since there are some=0A= > places where we would need to split a PMD page and there's no way to do= =0A= > that right now. In its place, I've added a patch which attempts to add= =0A= > support for unwritten extents. I'm still in two minds about this; on the= =0A= > one hand, it's clearly a win for reads and writes. On the other hand,=0A= > it adds a lot of complexity, and it probably isn't a win for pagefaults.= =0A= =0A= I ran this through xfstests, but ext4 in default configuration fails=0A= too many of the tests with filesystem corruption and other cascading=0A= failures on the quick group tests (generic/013, generic/070,=0A= generic/075, generic/091, etc) for me to be able to tell if adding=0A= MOUNT_OPTIONS=3D"-o xip" adds any problems or not....=0A= =0A= XIP definitely caused generic/001 to fail, but other than that I=0A= can't really tell. Still, it looks like it functions enough to be=0A= able to add XFS support on top of. I'll get back to you with that ;)=0A= =0A= Cheers,=0A= =0A= Dave.=0A= --=0A= Dave Chinner=0A= david@fromorbit.com=0A= -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org