From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Ritesh Harjani <ritesh.list@gmail.com>
Cc: Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jack@suse.cz,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
yebin10@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: correct the judgment of BUG in ext4_mb_normalize_request
Date: Mon, 23 May 2022 23:08:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220523210806.yeapg54ctleocwdn@quack3.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220523200844.fal3pmp7epid3rvv@riteshh-domain>
On Tue 24-05-22 01:38:44, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> On 22/05/21 09:42PM, Baokun Li wrote:
> > When either of the "start + size <= ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical" or
> > "start > ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical" conditions is met, it indicates
> > that the fe_logical is not in the allocated range.
>
> Sounds about right to me based on the logic in ext4_mb_use_inode_pa().
> We try to allocate/preallocate such that ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical should fall
> within the preallocated range. So if our start or start + size doesn't include
> fe_logical then it is a bug in the ext4_mb_normalize_request() logic.
I agree ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical is a goal block. But AFAIK it never was a
hard guarantee that we would allocate extent that includes that block. It
was always treated as a hint only. In particular if you look at the logic
in ext4_mb_normalize_request() it does shift the start of the allocation to
avoid preallocated ranges etc. so I don't see how we are guaranteed that
ext4_mb_normalize_request() will result in an allocation request that
includes ac->ac_o_ex.fe_logical.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-05-23 21:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-05-21 13:42 [PATCH 0/2] ext4: fix two bugs in ext4_mb_normalize_request Baokun Li
2022-05-21 13:42 ` [PATCH 1/2] ext4: fix bug_on ext4_mb_use_inode_pa Baokun Li
2022-05-23 9:29 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-23 9:58 ` Lukas Czerner
[not found] ` <2525e39a-5be9-bae1-b77d-60f583892868@huawei.com>
2022-05-24 12:11 ` Lukas Czerner
2022-05-24 12:42 ` Baokun Li
2022-05-23 19:51 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-21 13:42 ` [PATCH 2/2] ext4: correct the judgment of BUG in ext4_mb_normalize_request Baokun Li
2022-05-23 9:40 ` Jan Kara
[not found] ` <3755e40b-f817-83df-b239-b0697976c272@huawei.com>
2022-05-24 9:30 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-24 13:44 ` Baokun Li
2022-05-25 11:29 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-26 1:16 ` Baokun Li
2022-05-23 10:05 ` Lukas Czerner
2022-05-23 20:08 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-23 21:08 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2022-05-24 6:26 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-24 9:39 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-24 17:31 ` Ritesh Harjani
2022-05-25 12:12 ` Jan Kara
2022-05-24 6:09 ` Baokun Li
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20220523210806.yeapg54ctleocwdn@quack3.lan \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=libaokun1@huawei.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=ritesh.list@gmail.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=yebin10@huawei.com \
--cc=yi.zhang@huawei.com \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox