From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S263574AbUGNUhY (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:37:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S263725AbUGNUhY (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:37:24 -0400 Received: from gprs214-176.eurotel.cz ([160.218.214.176]:59264 "EHLO amd.ucw.cz") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263574AbUGNUhW (ORCPT ); Wed, 14 Jul 2004 16:37:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 22:32:58 +0200 From: Pavel Machek To: kernel list , ext2-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: ext3: bump mount count on journal replay Message-ID: <20040714203258.GC25802@elf.ucw.cz> References: <20040714131525.GA1369@elf.ucw.cz> <20040714200554.GR23346@schnapps.adilger.int> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040714200554.GR23346@schnapps.adilger.int> X-Warning: Reading this can be dangerous to your mental health. User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi! > > Currently, you get fsck "just to be sure" once every ~30 clean > > mounts or ~30 hard shutdowns. I believe that hard shutdown is way more > > likely to cause some disk corruption, so it would make sense to fsck > > more often when system is hit by hard shutdown. > > > > What about this patch? > > > > @@ -1484,9 +1485,11 @@ > > * root first: it may be modified in the journal! > > */ > > if (!test_opt(sb, NOLOAD) && > > - EXT3_HAS_COMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT3_FEATURE_COMPAT_HAS_JOURNAL)) { > > - if (ext3_load_journal(sb, es)) > > - goto failed_mount2; > > + EXT3_HAS_COMPAT_FEATURE(sb, EXT3_FEATURE_COMPAT_HAS_JOURNAL)) { { > > + mount_cost = 5; > > + if (ext3_load_journal(sb, es)) > > + goto failed_mount2; > > + } > > AFAICS, this just means that if you have an ext3 filesystem > (i.e. has_journal) that you will fsck 5x as often, not so great. You > should instead check for INCOMPAT_RECOVER instead of HAS_JOURNAL. Oops, you are right. Updated patch is attached. > Instead, you could change this to only increment the mount count after > a clean unmount 20% of the time (randomly). Since most people bitch > about the full fsck anyways this is probably the better choice than > increasing the frequency of checks and forcing the users to change the > check interval to get the old behaviour. Nice hack.... would that be acceptable? Pavel -- People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers... ...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!