XFS development tree branch, master, updated. v3.10-rc1-31-gade1335
[email protected]
Reviewed-by Ben MyersThis is an automated email from the git hooks/post-receive script. It was generated because a ref change was pushed to the repository containing the project "XFS development tree".
The branch, master has been updated
ade1335 xfs: ensure btree root split sets blkno correctly
from 8a1fd2950e1fe267e11fc8c85dcaa6b023b51b60 (commit)
Those revisions listed above that are new to this repository have not appeared on any other notification email; so we list those revisions in full, below.
- Log ----------------------------------------------------------------- commit ade1335afef556df6538eb02e8c0dc91fbd9cc37
Author: Dave Chinner <[email protected]> Date: Wed Jun 12 12:19:08 2013 +1000
xfs: ensure btree root split sets blkno correctly
For CRC enabled filesystems, the BMBT is rooted in an inode, so it passes through a different code path on root splits than the freespace and inode btrees. This is much less traversed by xfstests than the other trees. When testing on a 1k block size filesystem, I've been seeing ASSERT failures in generic/234 like:
XFS: Assertion failed: cur->bc_btnum != XFS_BTNUM_BMAP || cur->bc_private.b.allocated == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c, line: 317
which are generally preceded by a lblock check failure. I noticed this in the bmbt stats:
$ pminfo -f xfs.btree.block_map
xfs.btree.block_map.lookup
value 39135
xfs.btree.block_map.compare
value 268432
xfs.btree.block_map.insrec
value 15786
xfs.btree.block_map.delrec
value 13884
xfs.btree.block_map.newroot
value 2
xfs.btree.block_map.killroot
value 0
.....
Very little coverage of root splits and merges. Indeed, on a 4k filesystem, block_map.newroot and block_map.killroot are both zero. i.e. the code is not exercised at all, and it's the only generic btree infrastructure operation that is not exercised by a default run of xfstests.
Turns out that on a 1k filesystem, generic/234 accounts for one of those two root splits, and that is somewhat of a smoking gun. In fact, it's the same problem we saw in the directory/attr code where headers are memcpy()d from one block to another without updating the self describing metadata.
Simple fix - when copying the header out of the root block, make sure the block number is updated correctly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary of changes:
fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c | 10 ++++++++++ 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
hooks/post-receive
Signature · 6 lines
XFS development tree _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list [email protected] http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs