From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66CD67F54 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 17:02:24 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F27A8AC002 for ; Tue, 5 May 2015 15:02:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.141]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vjyJvF2uTekK9aJk for ; Tue, 05 May 2015 15:02:22 -0700 (PDT) From: Dave Chinner Subject: [PATCH 0/2] xfs: fix inode count underrun Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 08:01:37 +1000 Message-Id: <1430863299-9341-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi folks, With the conversion of XFS to use the generic per-cpu superblocks, I overlooked the fact that the update batch size is important to the accuracy of the comparison function. Using different batch sizes means percpu_counter_compare() doesn't detect when it should fall back to percpu_counter_sum() for accuracy correctly, resulting in counter comparisons being inaccurate. This leads to problems with zero threshold detection in XFS. To fix, add __percpu_counter_compare() to take a caller supplied batch size. This fixes the XFS regression introduced in 4.1-rc1. -Dave. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs