Properly protect the extent map
Get series with b4
b4 am [email protected]Versions newest first
- v1 Latest0 of 3 patches 0 repliesNew
Patches in v1 No applies recorded yet
None of the 3 patches the cover letter announces are in this archive.
Reviews trailers per patch
No Reviewed-by, Acked-by or Tested-by trailers for v1 yet.
Cover letter [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 0/3] Properly protect the extent map
Thanks Fabbio. Yes, we'll schedule the test on the big cluster after the 1.2.5 release run. Next week, I hope.
Quoted 35 lines · Fabio Massimo Di Nitto
Quoted 14 lines · Joel Becker
The extent map code was seeing an error trip when inserting records. There is a sanity check ensuring that the new record is within the known size of the file - as known by the extent map. The problem was that the "known" size was smaller than expected, returning an error to the caller.
This is a lot easier to see in local mounts. It has only been rarely seen in clusters.
We have three "independant" problems.
1) We don't take
ip_alloc_semwhen touching directory allocations.
2) We don't lockem_clustersproperly.
3) Local mounts race toocfs2_extent_map_trunc()inocfs2_meta_lock_update().Quoted 8 lines
The patches that follow are against mainline. They have been tested against 1.2 with local mounts.
Patches (1) and (2) will be ported to the ocfs2 1.2 branch directly, and all three fixes will be pushed to mainline.
Joel
add a
Signed-off-by Fabio M. Di Nitto <[email protected]>on all 3 of them. They fix the problem as i reported it, but it looks like they introduce a performance hit. Somebody other than me should test it too.
Fabio