linux-ext4.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>
To: Zachary Mark <zmark@cleversafe.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Discrepancy in 'df' output between kernel 3.0 and 3.2 for ext4?
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:00:29 -0500	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FDA34CD.9070404@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4FD8DB86.8030603@redhat.com>

On 6/13/12 1:27 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/13/12 1:08 PM, Zachary Mark wrote:
>> Ext4 developers,
>>
>> I recently upgraded my kernel from 3.0.24 to 3.2.18, and discovered
>> that df is now reporting different statistics for my ext4 file
>> systems (sda1 is ext3 and unaffected). Notice the difference
>> between the 1K-blocks column and Used column between kernel
>> versions (Available remains constant, as it is merely Used
>> subtracted from the total size):

...

>> Is this discrepancy between the df outputs on the two kernel versions
>> expected given my mount options? I decided to come to the list
>> because I don't have the technical depth with regard to ext4 to be
>> able to analyze the ext4_statfs changes that went into making
>> bigalloc work, and I haven't found any reports of similar symptoms
>> via web searches or the Documentation/filesystems/ext4.txt. This is
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830412 just came in and is probably the same root cause.
> 
> Thanks for the bisect!  I'll let Ted worry about it for now, at least until I have more time.

Ted, one thing that seems very weird to me.  When using BSD-style df, which is supposed to ignore basic metadata overhead, shouldn't a freshly mkfs'd filesystem always show free blocks == total blocks?  It doesn't do that either before or after your changes, which seems odd to me.  Am I misunderstanding what "bsddf" is supposed to do?

-eric

  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-06-14 19:00 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-06-13 18:08 Discrepancy in 'df' output between kernel 3.0 and 3.2 for ext4? Zachary Mark
2012-06-13 18:27 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-06-13 22:21   ` Zachary Mark
2012-06-14 19:00   ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2012-06-18 21:45 ` [PATCH 0/2] " Theodore Ts'o
2012-06-18 21:45   ` [PATCH 1/2] ext4: pass a char * to ext4_count_free() instead of a buffer_head ptr Theodore Ts'o
2012-06-18 21:45   ` [PATCH 2/2] ext4: fix overhead calculation used by ext4_statfs() Theodore Ts'o
2012-06-19 19:54   ` [PATCH 0/2] Re: Discrepancy in 'df' output between kernel 3.0 and 3.2 for ext4? Zachary Mark
2012-06-19 20:13     ` Ted Ts'o
2012-06-19 21:01       ` Zachary Mark

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=4FDA34CD.9070404@redhat.com \
    --to=sandeen@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=zmark@cleversafe.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).