linux-xfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] xfs: inode log reservations are still too small
Date: Tue, 04 Mar 2014 21:33:22 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <53169B02.1030709@sandeen.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1393981893-2497-3-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com>

On 3/4/14, 7:11 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> 
> Back in commit 23956703 ("xfs: inode log reservations are too
> small"), the reservation size was increased to take into account the
> difference in size between the in-memory BMBT block headers and the
> on-disk BMDR headers. This solved a transaction overrun when logging
> the inode size.
> 
> Recently, however, we've seen a number of these same overruns on
> kernels with the above fix in it. All of them have been by 4 bytes,
> so we must still not be accounting for something correctly.
> 
> Through inspection it turns out the above commit didn't take into
> account everything it should have. That is, it only accounts for a
> single log op_hdr structure, when it can actually require up to four
> op_hdrs - one for each region (log iovec) that is formatted. These
> regions are the inode log format header, the inode core, and the two
> forks that can be held in the literal area of the inode.
> 
> This means we are not accounting for 36 bytes of log space that the
> transaction can use, and hence when we get inodes in certain formats
> with particular fragmentation patterns we can overrun the
> transaction. Fix this by adding the correct accounting for log
> op_headers in the transaction.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>

Makes sense to me; 

Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com>

> ---
>  fs/xfs/xfs_trans_resv.c | 22 +++++++++++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_resv.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_resv.c
> index 8515b04..d2c8e4a 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_resv.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_resv.c
> @@ -81,20 +81,28 @@ xfs_calc_buf_res(
>   * on disk. Hence we need an inode reservation function that calculates all this
>   * correctly. So, we log:
>   *
> - * - log op headers for object
> + * - 4 log op headers for object
> + *	- for the ilf, the inode core and 2 forks
>   * - inode log format object
> - * - the entire inode contents (core + 2 forks)
> - * - two bmap btree block headers
> + * - the inode core
> + * - two inode forks containing bmap btree root blocks.
> + *	- the btree data contained by both forks will fit into the inode size,
> + *	  hence when combined with the inode core above, we have a total of the
> + *	  actual inode size.
> + *	- the BMBT headers need to be accounted separately, as they are
> + *	  additional to the records and pointers that fit inside the inode
> + *	  forks.
>   */
>  STATIC uint
>  xfs_calc_inode_res(
>  	struct xfs_mount	*mp,
>  	uint			ninodes)
>  {
> -	return ninodes * (sizeof(struct xlog_op_header) +
> -			  sizeof(struct xfs_inode_log_format) +
> -			  mp->m_sb.sb_inodesize +
> -			  2 * XFS_BMBT_BLOCK_LEN(mp));
> +	return ninodes *
> +		(4 * sizeof(struct xlog_op_header) +
> +		 sizeof(struct xfs_inode_log_format) +
> +		 mp->m_sb.sb_inodesize +
> +		 2 * XFS_BMBT_BLOCK_LEN(mp));
>  }
>  
>  /*
> 

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2014-03-05  3:33 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2014-03-05  1:11 [PATCH 0/2] xfs: more bug fixes Dave Chinner
2014-03-05  1:11 ` [PATCH 1/2] xfs: xfs_check_page_type buffer checks need help Dave Chinner
2014-03-05 17:06   ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-03-05 22:08   ` Brian Foster
2014-03-05 23:18     ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-05  1:11 ` [PATCH 2/2] xfs: inode log reservations are still too small Dave Chinner
2014-03-05  3:33   ` Eric Sandeen [this message]
2014-03-05 16:06   ` Brian Foster
2014-03-05 17:14   ` Christoph Hellwig
2014-03-05 21:40     ` Dave Chinner
2014-03-05 22:34       ` Christoph Hellwig

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=53169B02.1030709@sandeen.net \
    --to=sandeen@sandeen.net \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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).