From: Zachary Mark <zmark@cleversafe.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Re: Discrepancy in 'df' output between kernel 3.0 and 3.2 for ext4?
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 14:54:44 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FE0D904.7050401@cleversafe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1340055909-7683-1-git-send-email-tytso@mit.edu>
On 06/18/2012 04:45 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Zachary,
>
> Hopefully this should fix the problem which you noted.
>
>
> Theodore Ts'o (2): ext4: pass a char * to ext4_count_free() instead
> of a buffer_head ptr ext4: fix overhead calculation used by
> ext4_statfs()
>
> fs/ext4/balloc.c | 3 +- fs/ext4/bitmap.c | 12 +--- fs/ext4/ext4.h
> | 6 +- fs/ext4/ialloc.c | 3 +- fs/ext4/resize.c | 7 ++-
> fs/ext4/super.c | 174
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- 6 files
> changed, 140 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
>
Ted, thanks for the patches! I've tested your patches against 3.5~rc3.
I had to return the machine on which I first spotted the problem, but
here are results from a box with identical hardware:
df from 3.0:
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 5080796 891164 3927376 19% /
tmpfs 12368192 32 12368160 1% /dev/shm
/dev/sdh1 2907178636 205816 2906972820 1%
/media/012a0d3e-8210-4eb1-94a9-a2a1fdeb62f3
/dev/sdi1 2907178636 1056768 2906121868 1%
/media/20a46e68-8203-459e-8364-0626510c2ff9
df from 3.2.20 (identical to 3.5~rc3 without your patches):
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 5080796 928376 3890164 20% /
tmpfs 12368792 32 12368760 1% /dev/shm
/dev/sdh1 2928733612 21760792 2906972820 1%
/media/012a0d3e-8210-4eb1-94a9-a2a1fdeb62f3
/dev/sdi1 2928733612 22611744 2906121868 1%
/media/20a46e68-8203-459e-8364-0626510c2ff9
df from 3.5~rc3 with your patches applied (as they didn't apply to 3.2):
[root@lab-s2210-0331 20a46e68-8203-459e-8364-0626510c2ff9]# df
Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
/dev/sda1 5080796 909656 3908884 19% /
tmpfs 12368708 32 12368676 1% /dev/shm
/dev/sdh1 2907178636 205816 2906972820 1%
/media/012a0d3e-8210-4eb1-94a9-a2a1fdeb62f3
/dev/sdi1 2907178636 1060936 2906117700 1%
/media/20a46e68-8203-459e-8364-0626510c2ff9
(duplicate parts of output removed)
sdh1 is mostly empty. sdi1 has about 6700 128k files written to it plus
everything on sdh1. There seems to be slightly more overhead accounted
for after your patches. Not sure if this is to be expected or not. In
any case, they seem to be a step in the right direction if not an
outright solution. Let me know if you need anything additional from me.
-- Zachary Mark
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-06-19 19:55 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
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 ` Zachary Mark [this message]
2012-06-19 20:13 ` [PATCH 0/2] Re: Discrepancy in 'df' output between kernel 3.0 and 3.2 for ext4? 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=4FE0D904.7050401@cleversafe.com \
--to=zmark@cleversafe.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
/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).